Jharkhand High Court
Vishal Singh @ Vishal Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.579 of 2020
-----
Vishal Singh @ Vishal Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, s/o late
Niranjan Singh, r/o Daud Nagar, PO-Daud Nagar, PS-Daud Nagar,
District-Aurangabad (Bihar), at present r/o Flat No.303, 3 rd Floor,
Shrishti Enclave, Emli Kothi, PO & PS-Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh
(Jharkhand) ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
------
th
Order No./Dated:28 October, 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of the Cr.PC for suspension of sentence provisionally in
connection with the judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2020 and order
of sentence dated 22.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-VI, Hazaribag in connection with Sessions Trial No.141 of 2016
arising out of Sadar PS Case No.610 of 2015 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.2325 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the applicant has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.30,000/- under Sections 120B, 302 of the I.P.C r/w section 34 of the
I.P.C and in default of payment, further directed to undergo SI for
2½ years. He is further directed to undergo sentence of RI of two years
and a fine of Rs.6000/- under Section 353/34 I.P.C and in default of
payment, also directed to undergo SI for nine months and under Section
341 I.P.C, the appellant is also directed to undergo sentence of SI of one
month and Rs.200/- and in default of payment, further directed to
undergo SI for three days.
2. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
while pressing the I.A No.11728 of 2024 for suspension of sentence,
provisionally, has submitted that reason for filing the instant
interlocutory application is that necessity of presence of the appellant is
required since his wife has to undergo operation as the doctor has
detected stones in her gall-blader. The photo copy of the prescription has
been appended with the application.
3. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has prayed to
suspend the sentence, provisionally, for a period of one month.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand as also Mr. Kumar
Harsh, the learned counsel appearing for the informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the present
interlocutory application which has been filed by the applicant for
suspension of sentence, provisionally, is the fourth attempt by the
appellant whereas altogether he has attempted six times for suspension
of sentence. It has been contended that earlier, the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the applicant being I.A No.5833 of 2020 has already been
dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has been rejected
by a detailed order. The consideration has been given therein regarding
the gravity of the accusation which has been proved by the prosecution
witnesses.
6. It has been submitted that the similar prayer has been made by filing
another interlocutory application being I.A No.5483 of 2021 and at that
time, the ground was to attend the 'Sharadh Karma' of his deceased
brother-in-law, but the same was also rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 28.09.2021.
7. Again, the similar prayer was made by filing another interlocutory
application being I.A No.5282 of 2023 by which a prayer has been made
for suspension of sentence, but again the same was rejected vide order
dated 10.11.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
8. Another interlocutory application being I.A No.1551 of 2024 has been
filed for suspension of sentence, provisionally, but the same was not
pressed as would appear from the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in I.A
No.1551 of 2024.
9. Thereafter, again one interlocutory application being I.A No.6095 of
2024 has been filed for suspension of sentence, provisionally, but the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has not satisfied with the ground taken in
the said application on account of the fact that earlier the interlocutory
applications filed by the appellant were rejected twice.
10. It has been contended that the present interlocutory application is the
fourth attempt, so far as the issue of provisional suspension of sentence
is concerned, in a case where the prayer for suspension of sentence has
twice been rejected.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the aforesaid
grounds have vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence
of the applicant by taking the ground that the appellant, time and again,
is making out different grounds so as to make a ground for suspension of
sentence, provisionally.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the orders
rejecting the prayer for suspension of sentence passed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court.
13. The ground which has been raised in the present interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence, provisionally, on account of the
ailment of the wife of the applicant since the stone has been detected in
the gall-blader of his wife.
14. We have considered the nature of accusation which has been proved
by the learned trial Court and based upon the same, the prayer for
suspension of sentence has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 01.03.2021 passed in I.A No.5833 of 2020.
Subsequent thereto, another application was made on behalf of the
applicant to allow him to attend the 'Sharadh Karma' of his deceased
brother-in-law, but the coordinate Bench has declined to allow the said
application vide order dated 28.09.2021 passed in I.A No.5483 of 2021.
15. The applicant has filed another interlocutory application being I.A
No.5282 of 2023 for suspension of sentence, but the coordinate Bench
vide order dated 10.11.2023 has rejected the said prayer by taking into
consideration of the fact that, whatever has been argued, has been
considered by this Court in the order dated 01.03.2021 passed in I.A
No.5833 of 2020.
16. The appellant again has filed I.A No.1551 of 2024 seeking suspension
of sentence provisionally, but after some argument the same has not been
pressed.
17. Again, the similar prayer has been made in I.A No.6095 of 2024, but
the same was rejected vide order dated 08.07.2024 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court by making an observation therein that the
said application appears to be another attempt made by the appellant to
secure provisional bail having failed in his endeavour twice earlier.
18. For ready reference, the order dated 08.07.2024 is quoted herein
below:
Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.
This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of
provisional bail to him on account of the illness of his father-in-law who
needs immediate medical attention. In support of such contention some
medical prescriptions have been brought on record.
Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel appearing for the informant has
submitted that twice the prayer for provisional bail of the appellant was
rejected earlier.
On perusal of the prescriptions, we do not find any reference of the
patient to a higher centre for treatment. This appears to be another
attempt made by the appellant to secure provisional bail having failed in
his endeavour twice earlier.
In such circumstances, we do not feel inclined to grant provisional bail
to the appellant and consequently this interlocutory application stands
rejected."
19. This Court, in view of the aforesaid orders passed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court, is of the view that the prayer for suspension of sentence,
provisionally, has already been considered which have been filed on
different grounds three times and the present interlocutory application is the
fourth attempt, as such, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the
applicant, provisionally.
20. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11728 of 2024 stands rejected.
21. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending
before this Court for its consideration.
22. In view thereof, I.A. No. 11728 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Sudhir
