Budhan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10376 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Budhan Singh 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. 431 of 2024
            Budhan Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Bhade Singh, resident of
            Mauza- Sizhuwa, P.O. & P.S. Barkatha, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand
                                                                   ... Appellant
                                       -Versus-
            The State of Jharkhand                                  ... Respondent
                                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Appellant          : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
                                              -----

05/12.11.2024       I.A. No.10405 of 2024

Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State.

2. I.A. No.10405 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 03.05.2024 and 14.05.2024 respectively passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-VI cum Spl. Judge, C.A.W., Hazaribag in Sessions

Trial No.115/2019 arising out of Barkatha P.S. Case No.43/2017,

corresponding to G.R. Case No.766/2017, whereby, he has been sentenced

to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has been further

sentenced to undergo S.I. for two months. He submits that there are other

-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2024 sentences also, however, direction is there that all the sentences will run

concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the mother of

the victim is the informant and she has not been examined as well as the

I.O. of the case has also not been examined. He also submits that P.Ws.1

and 2 are relatives and they are uncle and father of the victim and P.W.3 is

the medical witness. He then submits that the appellant has remained in

custody for about 1 year and 25 days.

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 informant and the I.O. have not been examined

and only three witnesses have been examined and P.Ws. 1 and 2 are uncle

and father of the victim respectively and P.W.3 is the medical witness and

the appellant has remained in custody for about 1 year and 29 days 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-VI cum Spl.

Judge, C.A.W., Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No.115/2019 arising out of

Barkatha P.S. Case No.43/2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.766/2017.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.10405 of 2024 is disposed of.

                                                  (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/




                                          -2-                      Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 431 of 2024