Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Nath Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 659 of 2022
1.Bhola Nath Mahto
2.Sulochana Devi @ Sulochani Devi
3.Digendra Kumar Mahto @ Digendra Kumar
--- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.
I.A. No.10770 of 2023
12/10.05.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of
the appellant no.3 Digendra Kumar Mahto @ Digendra Kumar for
suspension of sentence, during pendency of this criminal appeal.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 01.06.2022 and the order of sentence dated 10.06.2022,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2018 (arising out of
Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 142 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.
2349 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no.3 along with
other appellants has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a
fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC and a
default sentence of S.I. for 15 days; R.I. for 7 years with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 2 months under Section
304(B) IPC and R.I. for 6 months along with fine of Rs.5000/- each and
a default sentence of S.I. for 15 days under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section
34 of the IPC and all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset pointed out that
earlier the present appellant no.3 Digendra Kumar Mahto @ Digendra
Kumar have had an occasion to file I.A. No. 3430 of 2023 for
enlarging him on bail during the pendency of the appeal, which was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2023. It is further
submitted that the present interlocutory application has been filed to
enlarge the appellant no.3 on bail, inter alia, on the ground that this
appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence
awarded by the learned Court below i.e., 4 years 3 months and 15
days against the maximum sentence of 7 years as awarded by the
learned trial court. Further, it has also been pointed out that the other
two appellants have already been granted bail by this Court vide order
dated 13.02.2023 in I.A. No. 8320 of 2022 in which the prayer for bail
of the present appellant was not pressed.
4. Apart from the period of custody already undergone by this
appellant i.e., more than half of the sentence awarded by the learned
court below, it is also submitted that the learned trial court has
committed gross error in appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf
of the appellant, particularly the documentary evidences vide Ext. A-
A/1, the medical prescriptions of doctor J. Gupta , Ext. B to B/1, the
medical prescriptions of Dr. Ratan Rane and Ext. C to C/4 i.e. the
medical prescriptions of RINPAS in order to take defence that the
deceased was suffering from mental weakness and treatment of her
mental health was going on at the mental hospital. This appellant has
no role to play in the commission of the offence and therefore, it is
urged on behalf of the appellant no. 3 to enlarge him on bail during
pendency of this appeal.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has opposed the contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant no.3 and submitted that on earlier
occasion by a reasoned order the prayer for bail of the present appellant
(husband of the deceased) has been rejected. Further, it has also been
pointed out that one counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State enclosing therein the custody report of this appellant procured from
the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hazaribag dated 17.02.2024 which is at
Annexure-A. It is further submitted that from perusal of the report, it
appears that appellant no.3 has already undergone custody for a period of
4 years 3 months and 15 days with remission, which is more than half of
the custody against the maximum punishment of 7 years as awarded by
the learned trial court.
6. Having heard the parties, perused the records of the case.
7. In the light of the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant no.3 and on considerations of the materials on record, it is
found just and fair to enlarge the appellant no.3 Digendra Kumar
Mahto @ Digendra Kumar on bail during pending of this appeal.
8. Accordingly, the appellant no.3- Digendra Kumar Mahto @
Digendra Kumar is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.25,000 ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 22 of 2018 (arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 142 of
2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2349 of 2017, subject to the
condition that appellant no.3 shall deposit the amount of entire fine
awarded by the learned court below under different heads / counts by
way of compensation in order to give it to P.W.6( father of the
deceased ) without being prejudice to the right of defence. The learned
court below is directed to send a notice to the father of the victim and
on his appeareance and proper verification, the amount deposited by
the appellant no.3 shall be disbursed to P.W.6- Mahesh Mahto.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10770 of 2023 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
