Jharkhand High Court
Taro Kumari Aged 27 Years Daughter Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.260 of 2024
----
1.Taro Kumari aged 27 years daughter of Sudama Bhuiyan
2.Nagina Bhuiyan aged 35 years son of Sudama Bhuiyan
3.Jagdish Bhuiyan age 57 years son of late Sukhari Bhuiyan
4.Sudama Bhuiyan age 56 years son of late Sukhari Bhuiyan
All residents of village Bhagodih Mudali Tola, PO and PS Ramna,
District Garhwa.. .... Appellant(s)
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. S.K.Sinha, Advocate
----
04/03.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the respondent State.
2. This appeal is already admitted and the lower court records are on the
record.
3. I.A. No. 7305 of 2024 has been filed for suspension of sentence during
pendency of this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been
convicted by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.04.2024 and 09.04.2024 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagar Untari, in connection with Sessions Trial No.278 of 2015, arising
out of Ramna PS Case No.53/2015, G.R.Case No.836 of 2015, whereby he has
been sentenced to undergo for RI for 8 years and fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default of fine RI for six months and it was directed that other sentences are
also provided under different sections, however, it was ordered that all
sentences will run concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that PW3 is informant who is
wife of the deceased and PW5 is son in law of the deceased and they are
interested witnesses. He submits that PW1, 2 and 4 are independent and
hearsay witnesses and they have stated nothing specific against the appellants.
PW7 is doctor and he has found that no definite reason of death is there. He
submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer for bail on
the ground that half of the sentence has not been completed by the appellant
and the allegations are against the accused persons.
7. Considering that PW-1, 2 and 4 are independent and hearsay witnesses
and they have stated nothing specific against the appellants and PW7 who is
doctor and he has found that no definite reason of death is there as well as
there are general and omnibus allegations against the appellant, I am inclined
to grant bail to the appellant.
8. Accordingly, appellants-Taro Kumari, Nagina Bhuiyan, Jagdish Bhuiyan
and Sudama Bhuiyan are hereby, directed to be released on bail, during
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, in connection with Sessions
Trial No.278 of 2015, arising out of Ramna PS Case No.53/2015, G.R.Case
No.836 of 2015.
9. The instant I.A. filed for grant of bail stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
