Jharkhand High Court
Prashant Jha @ Prashant Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.728 of 2022
Prashant Jha @ Prashant Kumar Jha ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
5/31.01.2023 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
this Court has already admitted this appeal, which has been preferred
against the Judgment dated 13.09.2022 and 19.09.2022 respectively
passed in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2013 arising out of Mohanpur P.S.
Case No. 193 of 2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Deoghar, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court has
convicted the appellant under Sections 323/34, 387/34 and 452/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced the appellant to pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he has to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 01 month u/s 323/34 I.P.C. The appellant
has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 04
year along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in case of default of
payment of fine he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06
month u/s 387/34 IPC. The appellant has been further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 04 year along with a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine he has to undergo
rigorous imprisonment month for 06 month u/s 452/34 I.P.C. All the
sentences are ordered to run concurrently except for sentences for
default in payment of fine. The period already under gone by the
convict during trial was ordered to be set off.
It has further been submitted that one I.A. No.263 of 2023 was
filed with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail during pending of
this appeal.
It has been pointed out that the allegation attributed against the
appellant was that he along with other co-accused persons entered
into the office of the informant, who was the then In-charge Principal
and demanded to take a construction contract for the construction of
the school namely Modal Bhawan and on refusal by the informant,
this appellant along with co-accused threatened them for dire
consequences of life and also manhandled and thrashed him. It has
further been pointed out that all important witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution namely PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5
have been declared hostile, who were none other than the peon and
teachers of the school, who are supposed to remain present at the time
of alleged occurrence. Further it has also been contended strongly on
behalf of the appellant that the informant Jagdish Rakesh was also not
a reliable witness in view of the major discrepancies found in his
deposition as evident from para 12, 14 & 15 where at one point of time,
he could not identify the appellant as an accused involved in the
commission of the offence, whereas on recall when this witness PW6
was re-examined and further cross examined, he has identified the
accused and as such the learned court below has committed gross
error in brushing aside these major discrepancies in the identification
of the appellant in the court at the time of trial. Further, it has also
been pointed out that the appellant has already remained in jail for
about six months including the pre-conviction period and post-
conviction period. Further it has also been submitted that the
appellant is also ready to deposit the half of the total fine amount as
imposed by the learned court below under all counts and sections. It
is further submitted that that this appeal is not likely to be heard in
near future and therefore the appellant deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the
evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and passed the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the
appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions
advanced on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the appellant
under the facts and circumstances of this case, this appellant Prashant
Jha @ Prashant Kumar Jha is directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, in connection
with S.T. No.230 of 2013, arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.193 of
2006, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., with further condition that he will deposit the half of the total
amount of the total fine as awarded by the learned court below in all
the counts amounting to Rs.1,00500/- (Rupees One Lakh Five
Hundred) out of Rs.201000/- (Two lakh one thousand).
Accordingly, the I.A. No.263 of 2023 gets disposed of.
Let this case be posted under the heading for hearing in seriatim.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
