Jharkhand High Court
Soma Lugun vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 916 of 2024
--------
Soma Lugun, aged about 31 years, S/o Late Sukru Lugun, Resident of
Village-Jarakel (Koylabera), P.O. & P.S. Bano, District- Simdega,
Jharkhand .. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad , Advocate
Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
--------
th
Order No. 06/ Dated: 14 October, 2024
Reference is made to the order dated 13.08.2024 wherein at para
10 a report has been sought from the Jharkhand State Legal Services
Authority to enquire into the matter and file a report before this Court as
to why the legal aid was not provided to this appellant in time.
2. In pursuance thereof, a report has been submitted by the learned
Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority dated
27.08.2024 which is based upon the report called for by District Legal
Services Authority, Simdega. It is evident from the said report that the
appellant had been consulted to take legal aid for the purpose of filing
the appeal, but he refused, during the relevant time, to avail the legal aid
on the pretext that he wanted to prefer his appeal through
private/personal lawyer.
3. But in pursuance of order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.916 of 2024 arising out of S.T. No.105 of
2017, again, the appellant had been consulted in order to file an appeal,
the appellant/convict has again made a Bandi Aawedan Patra expressing
his wish to engage private/personal lawyer in preferring the appeal.
4. This Court is therefore of the view that it is not the case where the
opportunity to avail the legal aid has not been facilitated, rather,
opportunity had been provided but the appellant, on his own, has not
availed the same on the pretext to engage private/personal lawyer.
5. We need to refer herein that the legal aid cannot be given by
compelling the inmates rather, the endeavors is to be made by the legal
aid of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal
Services Authority or the High Court Legal Services Committee interest
upon the image to avail the legal aid and, if the inmates are not willing to
avail the legal aid rather had shown their wish to engage the
private/personal lawyer they cannot be compelled to avail the legal aid.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not the case where
the endeavor has not been taken to avail the legal aid to the appellant.
7. Considering the aforesaid fact, the report submitted under the
signature of learned Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services
Authority is hereby accepted.
8. The instant Appeal has been listed for passing appropriate order on
the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of appellant under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 916 of 2024 in connection with S.T. Case No.105 of 2017
arising out of Bano P.S. Case No.35 of 2017 dated 13.05.2017
corresponding to G.R. Case No.225 of 2017 against the judgment of
conviction dated 27.01.2018 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2018 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted under Section 25(1-A), 26(2) of the Arms
Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine further
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month and further directed
to undergo R.I. 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of
payment of fine further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act and further to R.I. for 06
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine
further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section
17 of C.L.A. Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
9. The ground has been taken that the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years out of which the appellant has
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 916 of 2024
already remained in custody for 07 years. It has been submitted that since,
the appeal is of 2024 and 07 years has already been undergone against the
maximum sentence of 10 years, as such, it is a fit case where the sentence
may be suspended, otherwise, the appellant will have to face the rigor by
virtue of compelling him to remain in the custody, since, there is no
likelihood of the appeal to be taken up in future since the appeal is of 2024.
10. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has submitted on the basis of the custody
report, which is having with him in his possession that the appellant has
completed 07 years of sentence without remission and with remission 08
years, 07 months, 23 days.
11. This Court is therefore of the view that since the appeal is of 2024
and there is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up within the remaining
period of sentence and as such it is a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended.
12. Accordingly, in consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is
directed to be released on bail during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Simdega in S.T. Case No.105 of 2017 arising out of Bano P.S. Case
No.35 of 2017 dated 13.05.2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.225 of
2017.
13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.6715
of 2024 stands disposed of.
14. 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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 916 of 2024
