Jharkhand High Court
Shammu Gope @ Shambhu Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 29 of 2024
Shammu Gope @ Shambhu Gope, aged about 47 years, Son of Late
Mangal Gope, Resident of Badi Bazar, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa Sadar,
District- West Singhbhum ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
-----
03/15.10.2024 I.A. No. 9397 of 2024
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This appeal has already been admitted and the Trial Court Record is
on the record.
3. I.A. No. 9397 of 2024 has been filed for grant of bail and suspension
of sentence, during pendency of the present criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 19.12.2023 in Sessions Trial No.246 of 2023
arising out of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.91 of 2022 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and he has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section
307 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has been further directed
to undergo S.I. of 6 months. He submits that P.W.7 is the I.O. of the case
and he has stated that knife was not recovered by him and even blood
stained on the cloth has also not been recovered by him. He further submits
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 29 of 2024
that P.W.1 is the person who has received injury and he has deposed that
there was no quarrel with the appellant. He then submits that the appellant
and the informant are family members. He also submits that independent
witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 6 have not supported the case.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer on the
ground that even half of the sentence has not been completed by the
appellant.
6. Considering that the appellant is in custody for one year and three
months and that is disclosed in paragraph 18 of the said I.A., further P.Ws.
4 and 6 are independent witnesses and they have not supported the case of
the prosecution and P.W.7 is the I.O. and he has deposed that he has not
recovered knife and blood stained cloth, during the pendency of the present
criminal appeal, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant 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 Sessions Judge,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial No.246 of
2023, arising out of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.91 of 2022.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.9397 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 29 of 2024
