Raj Kumar Patralekh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 6354 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raj Kumar Patralekh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2024

Author: Subhash Chand

Bench: Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.23 of 2024
                                           -------
             Raj Kumar Patralekh.                               ... ... Appellant
                                              Versus
             The State of Jharkhand.                          ... ... Respondent
                                          ------

                   CORAM        : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

: SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Leena Shakti.

For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

------

04/ 01.07.2024

I.A. No.5320 of 2024

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellant praying

therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during pendency

of this appeal.

2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with

S.T. Case No.236/2021 (arising out of Sarwan P.S. Case No.54/2021). He

has been convicted for the offences under Section 304B(2), 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten

years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further

to undergo S.I. for a period of six months under Section 304B(2) of the Indian

Penal Code, and other sentences for other offences.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the

State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the

Trial Court Records.

4. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State

availed and opposed.

5. This is a case of dowry death. The appellant is the husband.

6. From the evidence, prima facie we find that the evidence of Section

304B is present. The death is unnatural as she died because of throttling.

There was demand for dowry soon before death.

7. Considering the aforesaid fact which is reflected in the evidence, we

are not inclined to release the appellant on bail.

8. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)

Prashant.Cp-3