Jharkhand High Court
Jago Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 886 of 2005
---------
1. Jago Mahto
2. Sudhir Mahto
3. Chhato Mahto
..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---------
11/05.01.2024 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 20.5.2005 passed by
Shri Birendra Prasad Singh, Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.-IV), Deoghar in Sessions Case no. 96 of
2004 arising out of G.R. Case No. 404 of 2003, by
which the appellants have been convicted for the
offences under Sections 341, 323 of the I.P.C. but
have been released by the learned Court below under
the provisions of Section 360 (1) Cr.P.C. by directing
them to execute bond of Rs. 1,000/- each for a period
of two years to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during the period of two years as the
Court may direct and in the meantime to keep peace
and be of good behaviour, although the learned court
below has acquitted the appellants for the offences
under Section 504, 313 and 337 of the I.P.C.
2. At the outset learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence are illegal, arbitrary and
not sustainable in the eye of law, however, it is further
submitted that the direction to furnish bond was
passed on 20.5.2005 and the period of bond, i.e. two
years has expired long back and hence, this Criminal
Appeal has become infructuous.
3. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that direction
by the learned Court below to furnished bond had
been passed in the year 2005 and the period of bond,
which was of two years, has expired long back, hence
this Criminal Appeal has become infructuous and may
be dismissed accordingly.
4. Perused the record of this case and
considered the submission of both sides.
5. It transpires that the all three appellants
have been convicted for the offences under Section
341/323 of the I.P.C., however, instead of passing any
sentence, the learned Court below has released the
appellants under the provisions of Section 360 (1)
Cr.P.C. by directing them to execute bond of Rs.
1,000/- each for a period of two years to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during the period
of two years as the Court may direct and in the
meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.
6. It transpires that the judgment of conviction
and sentence was passed on 20.5.2005 by the learned
Court below and from perusal of the Lower Court
Record, it also transpires that the appellants, namely
Jago Mahto, Sudhir Mahto and Chhato Mahto have
already furnished bonds before the Court in the light
of the direction passed by the learned Court below on
20.5.2005 itself and the period of bond, i.e. two years
has already expired long back, hence, this Criminal
Appeal has become infructuous.
7. Thus, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed as
having become infructuous.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
