Jharkhand High Court
Taukir Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1061 of 2024
--------
Taukir Khan, aged about 29 years, S/o Afzal Khan, R/o Tapkara, P.O. &
P.S. Tapkara, District-Khunti .. ... 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. Rabindra Kumar , Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP
--------
st
Order No. 08/ Dated: 21 October, 2024
Although, time for filing objection was given by this Court but the
State has not filed any affidavit-in-objection. As such in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Somesh
Chaurasia Versus State of M.P. & Anr"., 2021 Online SC 480 only one
adjournment is to be granted for filing objection, however, he has orally
argued.
2. The instant Appeal has been listed for passing appropriate order on
the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of appellant under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 1061 of 2024 in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.279
of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.477 of 2019, Session Trial No.416
of 2019 against the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2023 and order of
sentence dated 04.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XXI, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been convicted under Section 302/34 and 201 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/.
In default of payment of fine, further directed S.I. for 06 months. Appellant
was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine
of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further directed S.I. for 03
months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the case is
based upon the circumstantial evidence where the chain has not been
completed. It has been submitted that identical co-convict, namely, Md.
Israfil @ Raj has been directed to be enlarged on bail vide order dated
08.08.2024 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.226 of 2024 and as appended Annexure-1 to the instant
interlocutory application. The learned counsel has further submitted by
referring to the testimony that none of the witnesses have supported the
prosecution version regarding the culpability of the appellant and as such it
is a fit case where the sentence of the present appellant is concerned is fit to
be suspended.
4. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and has submitted that the case of the appellant cannot be said to be
identically placed with the case of the co-convict, namely, Md. Israfil @
Raj who has been directed to be enlarged on bail vide order dated
08.08.2024 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.226 of 2024, since, against the appellant there is direct and
specific allegation based upon his confession leading to recovery of the
motorcycle etc.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court as also the
testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Record.
6. The sole argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that they
are identically placed with the case of co-convict, namely, Md. Israfil @
Raj who has been directed to be enlarged on bail vide order dated
08.08.2024 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.226 of 2024, however, the same has been disputed by the learned
State counsel.
7. This Court in order to consider the aforesaid rival submissions as
considered the testimonies of the witnesses so as to come to the conclusion
as to whether the case of the appellant is identically placed with the case of
the co-convict, namely, Md. Israfil @ Raj.
8. It is evident from the confession of the present appellant and in
comparison of the same, on the confession of the Md. Israfil @ Raj, the
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1061 of 2024
motorcycle of the deceased was recovered on the disclosure statement of
this appellant namely, Taukir Khan and blue coloured scooty and white
omni car were recovered on the disclosure statements of co-convict,
namely, Md. Israfil @ Raj whose torn cloth was also recovered. Further, the
said torn cloth and blood stained mark has been found in the house having
under-construction which belongs to the Md. Israfil @ Raj, the co-convict.
9. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that since,
the case of the present appellant is identically placed with the case of co-
convict Md. Israfil @ Raj as per the deposition of the witnesses and as such
is of the view that the present interlocutory application also needs to be
allowed.
10. As such, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail during pendency of this appeal, 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 Judicial
Commissioner-XXI, Ranchi in Ratu P.S. Case No.279 of 2018,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.477 of 2019, Session Trial No.416 of 2019.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.9392
of 2024 stands disposed of.
13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before this
Court for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1061 of 2024
