Jharkhand High Court
Murlidhar Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 November, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.596 of 2016
1. Murlidhar Munda
2. Banshidhar Munda ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
Order No.10: Dated 28 November 2023
th
I.A. No.9092 of 2023
The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
Appellant No.2 Banshidhar Munda for suspension of sentence under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 28.11.2015 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2015, passed by
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial
Case No.314 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have
been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of
Rs.10,000/- each for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of
fine, they are further directed to undergo S.I. for six months.
2. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant No.2 Banshidhar
Munda that although the case of the appellant No.2 had earlier been
rejected by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 08.08.2018, but, the
appellant since has remained in custody for a period of about 11 years 10
2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.596 of 2016
months and as such, the instant interlocutory application has been filed
renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken the aid of
judgment rendered in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pardesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697 and has submitted
since the appeal is of 2016 and there is no likelihood of the appeal to
be taken up in near future and as such by taking into consideration the
period of custody, the instant interlocutory application may be
considered.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar learned Public
Prosecutor has seriously opposed the prayer made on behalf of the
appellant and has submitted that there is no view taken in the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saudan
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pardesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
697 that if there is no likelihood of taking up the appeal in near future,
then bail should be granted.
5. Since, the prayer for suspension of sentence has already been
rejected by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 08.08.2018 and the
appeal of 2015, 2016 and 2017 is running in the Board under the
heading 'for hearing' and hence it is incorrect on the part of the
appellant that there is no likelihood to take up the appeal in near
future.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. We have enquired from the Court Master regarding the listing of
the appeal under the heading 'for hearing'. It has been appraised after
going through the data that the appeal of 2015, 2016 and 2017 is
running on the Board.
8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the reason for
consideration of the application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
does not arise herein, since; it is not a case, which is not likely to be
taken in near future.
3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.596 of 2016
9. Since, this appeal is of the year 2016 and appeals of the year 2016
are running on the Board, and hence we are not in agreement with the
submission advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding
applicability of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pardesh reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 697 to the effect that there is no likelihood of the
appeal to be taken up in future.
10. Accordingly, the I.A. No.9092 of 2023 is hereby rejected.
11. However, the appeal is since of the year of 2016 and as such, let
this appeal be listed under the heading 'for hearing' so the appeal be
heard finally.
12. Accordingly, the office is directed to list this case under the
heading 'for hearing' in it's seriatim.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
