Nageshwar Mahto @ Nageshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10566 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Nageshwar Mahto @ Nageshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 426 of 2024
          1. Nageshwar Mahto @ Nageshwar Yadav, aged about 61 years, son of late
              Tiplal Yadav, resident of village Alkui, P.O. and P.S. Mohanpur, District-
              Deoghar
          2. Mahendra Yadav @ Parmeshwar Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad Yadav, aged
              about 45 years, son of late Peru Yadav, resident of village Alkui, P.O. and
              P.S. Mohanpur, District-Deoghar
          3. Baldeo Yadav @ Baldeo Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of late Tiplal
              Yadav, resident of village Alkui, P.O. and P.S. Mohanpur, District-Deoghar
                                                                   ..... Appellant
                            Versus
      The State of Jharkhand                                       ...... Respondent
                                             ----
      CORAM:          HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

---

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

----

05/21.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. I.A. No.8727 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 appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2024 and 29.06.2024 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.71/2014 arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.265/2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1100/2010, whereby, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 307/149 of IPC. He submits that there are other sentences also, however, direction is there that all the sentences will run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants have remained in custody for about five months. He submits that the specific allegation of assault is there against one Mahendra Yadav. He then submits that P.W.3 is the informant and he has also stated that Mahendra Yadav has assaulted Diwakar Yadav due to that he has received injury. He also submits that so far as other P.Ws. are concerned, they have also stated in the same way. He further submits

that six co-accused persons have already been granted bail in Criminal

6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that even half of the sentence has not been completed by the appellants.

7. From the judgment, it transpires that there is land dispute between the parties and there are case and counter case and considering that P.W.3 is the informant and P.W.6 is the injured and they have stated that Mahendra Yadav has assaulted Diwakar Yadav and pursuant to that he has received injury and other witnesses have stated in the same line and also considering that the appellants have remained in custody for about five months and six co-accused persons have already been granted bail in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 416 of 2024, as such, during the pendency of this criminal appeal, I am inclined to enlarge the above named appellants on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.71/2014 arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.265/2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1100/2010.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.8727 of 2024 is disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) Satyarthi