Barka Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10104 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Barka Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 October, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 500 of 2024
          Barka Kisku, Aged 38 years, son of late Guliya Kisku, resident of village
          Neemgachhi, P.O. and P.S. Mirzachowki, District-Sahibganj
                                                                 ..... Appellant
                            Versus
      The State of Jharkhand                                     ...... Respondent
                                             ----
      CORAM:         HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

---

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Allan Anton Andrew, A.C. to Mrs. Khaida Haya Rashmi

For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.

----

I.A. No. 10929 of 2024 05/22.10.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. This appeal is already admitted and Trial Court Record is on record.

3. I.A. No. 10929 of 2024 has been filed for suspension of sentence and release the appellant on bail, during the pendency of this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted by judgment dated 11.03.2024 and sentenced by order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 85/2016 arising out of Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 274 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 647/2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj. He further submits that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and in default the appellant was directed to undergo further S.I. for three months. He submits that other sentences are also there in different sections however it was ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and informant are family members and for land dispute the said incident took place. He submits that maximum sentence is five years and the appellant has remained in custody for 11 months and 13 days. He further submits that there is no eye witness to the incident and injury is simple in nature. He submits that prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W.5 are not consistent and there are contradiction in the statement of those witnesses.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the appellant has not completed half of the sentence. He further submits that there is assault by hard and blunt substance and the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution.

7. Considering that the appellant has remained in custody for 11 months and 13 days and there is contradictory statement in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W. 5, injury is simple in nature, the appellant and informant are family members and in the hit of moment such incident has taken place, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the above named appellant is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 85/2016 arising out of Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 274 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 647/2015.

8. The aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) Satyarthi