Jharkhand High Court
Ziyaul Haque @ Salim Ansari @ Ziyaul ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2023
Ziyaul Haque @ Salim Ansari @ Ziyaul Haque Ansari
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
Order No.06/ Dated 23rd January, 2024
I.A. No. 2179 of 2023
1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of
the appellant for suspension of sentence, during pendency of this
criminal appeal.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 25.01.2023 and the order of sentence dated 27.01.2023,
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial Case No.
347 of 2015 arising out of Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 06 of 2015
corresponding to G.R. No. 331 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections
364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo
RI for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation of R.I. of 6
months.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.T. Sajid has
submitted that there is inconsistency in the version of the evidence of
P.W.1, who, at the first instance deposed that he had not identified any of
the accused including the appellant but on recall he deposed to have
identified the accused persons including the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail namely Tuntun
Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 504 of 2022 vide order dated 26.07.2022;
Mumtaz Ansari in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 559 of 2022; Md. Khurshid
Ansari @ Khurshid Ansari in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 526 of 2022 and
Manoj Baitha in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 543 of 2022, all vide order dated
21.09.2022. The reason indicated while granting bail to the aforesaid co-
accused persons is that P.W.1 failed to identify any of the miscreants.
Therefore, it is prayed that since the case of the present appellant also
stands on similar footing, he may be granted the privilege of suspension
of sentence.
5. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence. However, he has not disputed the fact
that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted the
privilege of suspension of sentence namely Tuntun Singh in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 504 of 2022 vide order dated 26.07.2022; Mumtaz Ansari in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 559 of 2022; Md. Khurshid Ansari @ Khurshid
Ansari in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 526 of 2022 and Manoj Baitha in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 543 of 2022, all vide order dated 21.09.2022.
6. Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, also
considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted the privilege of suspension of sentence and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant, named above is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail-bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge,
Garhwa in Sessions Trial Case No. 347 of 2015 arising out of
Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 06 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 331 of
2015.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2179 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed
of
( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
