Jharkhand High Court
Mritunjay Sharma 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. 392 of 2024
1. Mritunjay Sharma, aged about 38 years, son of Sri Bishnu Sharma
2. Kartik Sharma, aged about 42 years, sonof Sri Bishnu Sharma
3. Kunjay Sharma, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Bishnu Sharma
4. Parmanand Sharma, aged about 32 years, son of Sri Bishnu Sharma
All are resident of Village Kakni Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. Saraiyahat,
District- Dumka, Jharkhand ... Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.
-----
04/15.10.2024 I.A. No. 6463 of 2024
Heard Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal has already been admitted and the Trial Court Record is
on the record.
3. I.A. No. 6463 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 appellants submits that the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 12.06.2024 and 14.06.2024 respectively in
Sessions Trial No.78 of 2022, arising out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.118 of
2020, G.R. No.855 of 2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Dumka and they have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one
month under Section 341/34 of IPC, they have been further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 448/34 of IPC
and in default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to
undergo R.I. of one month and they have also been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for four years and fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 325/34 of IPC and in
default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to undergo R.I.
of 3 months and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
He submits that the appellants are in custody from 12.06.2024 and they
were all along on bail during trial. He further submits that there is land
dispute between the parties and for that, the case has been registered. He
also submits that there are case and counter case between the appellants
and informant side.
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
appellants.
6. Considering that the appellants are in custody from 12.06.2024 and
maximum sentence is awarded as four years and there is land dispute
between the parties and further, there are case and counter case between
them, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal, I am inclined to
enlarge the above named appellants on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Dumka in connection with Sessions Trial No.78 of 2022, arising
out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.118 of 2020, G.R. No.855 of 2021.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.6463 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
