Jharkhand High Court
Munna Kumar Yadav @ Badhot @ Baghot vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.52 of 2019
Munna Kumar Yadav @ Badhot @ Baghot, aged about 31 years, son of Sri
Sudarshan Badhot @ Sudarshan Bhagot, resident of Village Barhait, P.O. &
P.S. Hansdiha, District - Dumka. ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
nd
Order No.12: 22 November 2024
I.A. No.4994 of 2024
This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence during pending of this appeal, which is filed against the judgement
of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and order and sentence dated 19.12.2018
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II- cum-FTC for offences against
woman, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2013; whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted u/s 302/34, 201/34 and 376 (2)(g) of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I
for one year. Under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, further
directed to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I for six months and
u/s 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code further directed to undergo R.I. for 12
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo R.I. for one year, however, all the sentences have been
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant since has already undergone the custody for a period of 11 years
and eight months and as such, primarily the present interlocutory application
has been filed on the basis of the sentence already undergone by the present
appellant namely Munna Kumar Yadav @ Badhot @ Baghot.
3. It has also submitted by referring to Annexure - 2 that is the order
dated 29.04.2024 passed in interlocutory application being I.A. No.3536 of
2022 arising out of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.111 of 2019, wherein also the
coordinate Bench has taken into consideration the period of custody, in which
all the three co-convicts of the said appeal, since had completed more than 11
years of custody, hence, prayer for suspension of sentence has been allowed.
Learned senior counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, particularly on the
ground of custody and parity, has made prayer for suspension of sentence.
4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, leaned Public Prosecutor while on the other hand
has submitted that on merit, prayer for bail of the appellant had been
considered by the coordinate Bench and such prayer was rejected as it would
appear from the order dated 02.07.2019, but to be fair enough after going
through the Annexure-2 that on the basis of the period of custody, three co-
convicts namely Bhola Marik, Rajesh Marik and Fantush Mandal @
Ghanshyam Mandal, vide order dated 29.04.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.111
of 2019 has been directed to be released on bail.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and on
appreciation of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has
found that the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant had already
been rejected by the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the coordinate Bench
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.52 of 2019.
6. The present application has been filed renewing the prayer for
suspension of sentence particularly on the ground that the appellant has
already remained in custody for the period 11 years and 08 month
approximately and the co-convicts namely Bhola Marik, Rajesh Marik and
Fantush Mandal @ Ghanshyam Mandal in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.111 of 2019
vide order dated 29.04.2024 have been directed to be released on bail also on
consideration of period of custody.
7. This Court considering the period of custody in the present case and
applying the principal of parity, as also on the basis of the Judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 697, wherein it has been observed
that if there is no likelihood to take up the appeal in near future and the
convict has already remained in custody for more than ten years in the case of
life imprisonment, the consideration is to be given for suspension of sentence,
so that he may come out from judicial custody.
8. This Court, considering the aforesaid, is of the view that the present
interlocutory application be allowed.
9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released 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
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II- cum-FTC offences against woman
Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2013.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not gone through the merit of this
case, rather only considered the period of custody of the appellant, which is
more than 10 years.
11. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.4994
of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
