Jharkhand High Court
Nayak Jee @ Anil Baitha @ Gaura Baitha @ ... 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.133 of 2024
----
Nayak Jee @ Anil Baitha @ Gaura Baitha @ Dilip Baitha @ Ram Raj Rajak,
aged about 50 years, son of late Chanarik Baitha @ Chanark Bhaitha @
Chanaik Rajak, resident of village and Post Office Sarsot PS Hariharganj,
Dist. Palamau .... Appellant(s)
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. V.S. Sahay, Advocate
----
6/03.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the respondent State.
2. I.A. No. 2683 of 2024 has been filed for suspension of sentence during
pendency of the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits appellant has been convicted
and sentenced by judgment and order dated 7.2.2024 and 16.2.2024
respectively passed in Sessions Trial Case No.53 of 2022 by learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra whereby appellant has been found guilty
under section 414/34 IPC and 25(1-A) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
RI of 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/- and sentenced under different other
sections and that learned trial court has failed to appreciate that prosecution
story has not been proved by the prosecution and the learned trial court has
acquitted appellant and other accused persons under section 384, 387, 120B of
IPC and section 17(i)(ii) of CLA Act by holding in para 28 of judgment that
accused persons were involved in demand of illegal levy as not a single victim
was examined. It is further held that the story of prosecution that accused
persons were members of TSPC organization has not been proved as no
documentary or circumstantial evidence brought on record to prove that
accused persons were members of TSPC organization. Nothing was proved that
accused persons committed criminal conspiracy against any of the victim or
person. Hence charge under section 384, 387, 120B IC and 17(i) (ii) of CLA Act
is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts then the entire prosecution fails and
the conviction under Arms Act on the basis of confessional statement is not
justified. He further submits that no arms have been recovered from the
possession of the appellant and said were said to be recovered from the forest
and only three mobile phones were found recovered from the possession of the
appellant and the appellant has remained in custody for more than two years
and 9 months.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer and
submits that half of the sentence has not been completed by the appellant and
there are other evidence against the appellant and in view of that the prayer for
bail may kindly be rejected.
5. Considering that no arms has been recovered from the possession of the
appellant and the said were said to be recovered from the forest and only three
mobile phones were found recovered from the possession of the appellant and
the appellant has remained in custody for more than two years and 9 months,
I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the appellant- Nayak Jee @ Anil Baitha @ Gaura Baitha @
Dilip Baitha @ Ram Raj Rajak, is hereby, directed to be released on bail, during
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in Sessions Trial Case
No.53 of 2022.
7. The instant I.A. meant for grant of bail stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
