Amrit Tete vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10368 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Amrit Tete vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 187 of 2024
            Amrit Tete, aged about 22 years, son of Jorge Tete, resident of Village
            Kurpani, Dipatoli, P.O. & P.S. T. Tangar, District- Simdega, Jharkhand
                                                                       ... Appellant
                                          -Versus-
            The State of Jharkhand                                     ... Respondent
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Appellant         : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
            For the State             : Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, A.P.P.
                                            -----

05/12.11.2024     I.A. No.11916 of 2024

Heard Mr. Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Naveen

Kumar Gaunjhu, learned counsel for the State.

2. I.A. No.11916 of 2024 has been filed for grant of bail and suspension

of sentence, during pendency of the present criminal appeal.

3. This appeal is already admitted and the Trial Court Records has been

received.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been

convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 respectively passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial Case

No.68/2022 arising out of T. Tangar P.S. Case No.05/2022, corresponding to

G.R. No.79/2022, whereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7

years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC

and in default of payment of each fine, he has been further sentenced to

undergo S.I. for six months. He submits that there are other sentences also,

however, direction is there that all the sentences will run concurrently.

-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 187 of 2024

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is

in custody since 13.01.2022 and, as such, he has remained in custody for

about two years and ten months. He then submits that the fardbeyan of the

victim was written by her son, who is P.W.2 and P.W.2 has not taken name

of this appellant, however, he has taken the name of five other co-convicts.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that

even half of the sentence has not been completed by the appellant.

7. Considering that the appellant has remained in custody for about two

years and ten months and P.W.2 has written fardbeyan on behalf of the

victim and he has not taken name of this appellant, however, he has taken

name of five other co-convicts and, as such, during the pendency of this

criminal appeal, I am inclined to enlarge the above named appellant 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-I, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial Case

No.68/2022 arising out of T. Tangar P.S. Case No.05/2022, corresponding to

G.R. No.79/2022.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.11916 of 2024 is disposed of.

                                                   (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/




                                           -2-                     Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 187 of 2024