Jharkhand High Court
Jagarnath Yadav @ Jagarnath Ghosh @ Kalu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 543 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 8920 2023
---------
Jagarnath Yadav @ Jagarnath Ghosh @ Kalu Ghosh, aged about 37
years, so of Late Makul Ghosh @ Nakul Mandal, resident of Chainpara,
Post Office and Police Station, Vaishnav Nagar, District-Malda, West
Bengal.
....... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocate
For the Respondent : None
-----------
th
05/Dated: 11 January, 2023
I.A. No. 8920 of 2023:
1. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has sought for leave of
this Court to make necessary correction in the cause title of the instant
interlocutory application as also in the prayer portion as the same has
been filed under Section 389(2) of Cr.P.C. praying for regular bail
against the order of conviction and sentence instead of filing under
Section 389(1) for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.
2. Considering the said submission, leave as sought for, is allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary
correction in the cause title of the instant interlocutory application and in
the prayer portion, in course of the day.
4. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C. for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with
the judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2023 and order of sentence dated
16.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2015(S) arising out of
Harla P.S. Case No. 14 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 147 of
2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence committed under Section 420 of IPC;
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence committed under Section 489-B of IPC and; rigorous
imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
committed under Section 489-C of IPC.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has
miserably failed in proving the charge since the note which is said to be
recovered has not been send for its authentication with respect to the fact
as to whether the note so recovered are fake or a piece of counterfeiting.
6. Further submission has been made that even the investigating officer has
not been examined in this case, as such, serious prejudice has been
caused.
7. Ground has also been taken that identically placed co-convict, namely,
Harendra Kumar Singh has been directed to be released from judicial
custody after suspension of sentence vide order dated 02.01.2023 passed
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 324 of
2022.
8. The contention has also been made that the case of the appellant herein is
identically placed with the case of said Harendra Kumar Singh, the
appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 324 of 2022, as such, on this ground
also the case of the appellant is fit to be allowed keeping the sentence in
abeyance.
9. The matter was heard on 02.11.2023. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor had taken time in order to examine as to whether the case of
the co-convict, namely, Harendra Kumar Singh, is identically placed
with the present appellant, but, none is present to represent the
respondent-State.
10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
11. This Court has gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial
court in the impugned order as also the testimony of the witnesses as
available in the lower court records which has been called for by this
Court vide order dated 18.05.2023.
12. This Court, in course of scrutiny as to whether the case of the appellant
is identically placed with the case of Harendra Kumar Singh or not, has
considered the testimony of P.W.-5, the informant, and has found
therefrom that 90 notes of denomination of Rs.500/- was recovered from
the inner pocket of pant of Harendra Kumar Singh.
13. It has further been deposed by him that in the seizure list carrying details
of recovered notes, there is signature of Harendra Kumar Singh and
thumb impression of Jaganath Yadav which was identified and was
marked as Ext. p-2/P.W.-5.
14. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact that since the case of the co-
convict, namely, Harendra Kumar Singh is identically placed with the
case of the present appellant as per the testimony of the informant,
therefore, is of the view that the instant interlocutory application
deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8920 of 2023 stands allowed.
16. In consequence thereof, the appellant named above, is directed to be
released 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2015(S) arising out of Harla
P.S. Case No. 14 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 147 of 2015.
17. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice
the case of the appellant on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying
pending before this Court for consideration.
18. In view thereof, I.A. No. 8920 of 2023 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Saurabh/-
