Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Yadav @ Raju vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 673 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 492 of 2024
---------
Rajendra Yadav @ Raju, aged about 43 years, son of Ramnarayan
Yadav @ Mahrang Yadav, resident of village Jhardag, P.O.
Lawalong Police Station- Simariya (Lawalong), District Chatra
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
-----------
08/Dated: 24th October, 2024
I.A. No. 492 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of
sentence in connection with the judgment of conviction dated
01.02.2023 and the order of sentence dated 03.02.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in Sessions Trial
Case No.174 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 (twelve) years
along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he
was directed to be punished further rigorous imprisonment of six
(6) months.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
out of the maximum punishment of twelve years, the appellant has
already remained in custody for seven years, i.e., for more than half
of the sentence.
3. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that since the appeal is of the year 2023, as such, there is
no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up in near future, as such, in
view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saudan
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259, it is
a case where the present interlocutory application may be allowed.
4. While on the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail so far as the merit of the
case is concerned but has not disputed the period of custody that the
appellant has already remained in custody for more than half of the
sentence.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
considered the instant application filed for suspension of sentence
primarily on completion of half of the sentenced period, i.e., the
appellant has remained in custody for almost seven years against
the maximum punishment of twelve years.
6. This Court has also taken into consideration that the appeal is of the
year 2023 and there is no likelihood of appeal to be taken up in near
future and also taking into consideration the observation so made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saudan Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra) wherein it has been observed that if the appeal is
not likely to be taken up in near future and in case the convict has
remained in custody for more than half of the sentence, then the
prayer for suspension of sentence may be considered. Reference of
the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being reproduced as
under:
"7. We may note that there may be even convicts in custody in
cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the
broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone
can be the basis for grant of bail."
7. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the
appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for
suspension of sentence.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 492 of 2024 stands allowed.
9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, namely, Rajendra Yadav @
Raju 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 the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in Sessions Trial Case No.174 of 2013.
10. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, this criminal appeal is lying
pending before this Court for its consideration.
11. In view thereof, I.A. No. 492 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Madhav/ Rashmi/-
