Jharkhand High Court
Anuj Kumar @ Chhotu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.280 of 2017
Anuj Kumar @ Chhotu ...... 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. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Spl.P.P.
.....
Order No.10/ Dated:29.01.2024
IA No. 1746 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of
sentence dated 09.12.2016 in connection with impugned Judgment of
conviction dated 17.12.2016 whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs. 50,000/-
2. The ground has been taken for suspension of sentence in the instant
interlocutory application that the appellant has already remained in
custody for about eight years. The aforesaid submission has been made
based upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 697.
3. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed this instant interlocutory application on the ground
that the said judgment will only be applicable if the appeal is not likely to
be taken up and the convicts have already completed half of the sentence.
4. Further it has been submitted that the appeal is of the year 2017 and is
running in the daily cause list under the heading for order and hence,
appeal may be taken on merits and the prayer for suspension of sentence
of the appellant has already been rejected by the Co-ordinance Bench of
this Court in I.A. 5481 of 2019 vide order dated 18.07.2019, as such
suspension of sentence is not required herein.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
above averment in the interlocutory application.
6. The admitted fact herein is that the case of the appellant for
suspension of sentence has already been dealt with by the Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court by passing the order in the Interlocutory
application in I.A. 5481 of 2019 vide order dated 18.07.2019.
7. However, the instant interlocutory application has been filed on the
ground of custody since, the appellant has already completed eight years
of sentence. The argument has been advanced by placing reliance upon
the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saudan
Singh (supra).
8. This Court has gone through the said Judgment and found the
observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where the convict
has already completed 10 years of conviction against imprisonment in
life sentence cases and there is no likelihood of adjudication of the
appeal should be granted bail.
9. As has been informed on behalf of the learned State Counsel that the
appeal is of the year 2017 and the appeals of the year 2017 are running on
the daily cause list.
10. We, on getting the same from the daily cause list, has found that the
cases which have been listed in the daily cause list is of the year 2017 as
such, we are of the view that, it is not a case where the appeal is not
likely to be taken.
11. Considering the facts that the prayer for suspension of sentence has
already been rejected by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court
and as such, this Court is of the view that since the Criminal Appeal of
the year 2017 and the appeals of the year 2017 are running in the daily
cause list as such the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Saudan Singh (supra) is not applicable herein in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is hereby dismissed.
13. However, since the appeal of the year 2017 and the appeals of the year
2017 are running in the daily cause list, hence, let the instant appeal be
listed as per its seriatim under the appropriate heading.
14. Office is directed to prepare the paper book and supply it to the
learned counsel for the parties within a week.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rajnish/
