Jharkhand High Court
Mansa Ram Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1104 of 2023
Mansa Ram Mahato ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, S.P.P.
-----
03/11.08.2023 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
14.03.2023 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021
(M.C.R.A. No.327 of 2023, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.43/2020,
G.R. No.747/2020, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Seraikella.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been convicted under Section 409 and 471 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 31.08.2021 and he has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- has been
imposed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for
two years under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021 (M.C.R.A. No.327 of 2023), which is still
pending. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before
this Court in Cr.M.P. No.329 of 2022, which was dismissed vide order dated
05.05.2022. The said Cr.M.P. was dismissed considering that the petitioner
has not served half of the sentence and observation was made that the
petitioner may renew his prayer before the learned court after completion of
half of the sentence. He submits that now the petitioner has completed
more than half of the sentence and in view of that fresh application was
filed for bail, however, vide order dated 14.03.2023, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella has been pleased to reject the petition only on
the ground that earlier the case was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge
as well as by the High Court. He submits that there is no discussion about
the observation of this Court and in view of that, the impugned order may
kindly be set aside.
4. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State submits that
the observation of this Court is there and it appears that the petitioner has
completed half of the sentence.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.09.2020
and he is in jail custody for about 2 years and 11 months. Considering that
the sentence is of five years only and the petitioner has already remained in
jail custody more than half of the sentence and also considering that there
is no chance of deciding the said appeal at the earliest, in view of that the
order dated 14.03.2023 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.18 of
2021 (M.C.R.A. No.327 of 2023, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case
No.43/2020, G.R. No.747/2020, pending in the court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella is set aside. The petitioner shall be
enlarged on bail subject to condition put by the learned appellate court.
6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
