Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar Keshri vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ..Opp. Party on 10 September, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Rev. No. 936 of 2024
Rahul Kumar Keshri, Ro Vill Budhan Mohalla Shastri Chowk Loharda-
ga Po Ps Dist Lohardaga At Present Residing At Bara Jamda Po Ps Gua
Bara Jamda Dist West Singhbhum
.. .. ..Petitioner
--VERSUS--
The State of Jharkhand ... ..Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---------
For the Petitioner : MR INDRAJIT SINHA, ADVOCATE
MR AKHOURI AWINASH KUMAR, ADVOCATE
(in Cr.Rev. No. 936 of 2024)
For the State : MR VISHWANATH ROY, SPP
(in Cr.Rev. No. 936 of 2024)
07/DATED: 10-09-2024
IA No. 9471 of 2024
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for
suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this criminal revision petition.
By way of this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for
suspension of sentence of the order dated 25.01.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with GR Case
No. 920 of 2021, arising out of Gua PS Case No. 25 of 2021 which was
affirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa vide judgment dated
24.06.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2024, and grant of bail during pendency of
the instant criminal revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has earlier moved before this Court for grant of exemption from surrender in
terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 in IA No. 8377 of
2024 which was rejected vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed by this Court. The
learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Courts-below have failed
to appreciate that there is neither any evidence on record to establish that the
pollution testing centre was sealed by an order of SDM nor the order allegedly
issued by the SDO, Jagannathpur vide letter no.50/G dated 06.10.2021, on the
basis of which the testing centre was sealed has been brought on record by the
prosecution, which completely falsify the entire case. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the learned Courts-below have failed to appreciate that
PW-1 to PW-4 who are family members of the landlord of the shop have not
supported the case and have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The
learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Courts-below have failed
to appreciate that as per the FIR it has been alleged that the petitioner who is
the owner of "Naman Pollution Testing Centre" is involved in preparing of
false and illegal documents with regard to pollution centre and accordingly, his
shop was sealed by the Circle Officer, further it has been alleged that in the
midnight the petitioner was removing the articles of the said centre after
breaking the wall and from his possession three laptops and other article were
recovered, however, during the course of trial, the prosecution has failed to
produce any document with regard to the alleged occurrence. The prosecution
has failed to produce any document or order passed by the authority by which
the shop of the petitioner was sealed, further prosecution has failed to produce
any photograph to show that the wall of the shop was broken by the petitioner
as none witnesses have supported this fact, PW-1 to PW-3 are the owners of the
shop who have been declared hostile by the prosecution and they have not
supported this fact that the wall was broken by the petitioner or any other
person, further the laptops which were recovered from the possession of the
petitioner was sent for examination but nothing suspicious was found during
examination which is evident from the letter no. 699 dated 12.11.2021 issued
by the District Transport Officer (DTO), West Singhbhum. Apart from that, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suffering
from Type-II diabetes and heart related ailments. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner has surrendered on 30.08.2024 and till then
he is in judicial custody. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances,
the petitioner may be granted privilege of suspension of sentence, during
pendency of this criminal revision petition.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed this interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this criminal
revision petition but he has verified from the authorities and has placed on
record the communication from the Ghaghidih Central Jail, Jamshedpur
wherein it is stated that the relevant treatment is not available in Jamshedpur
and the facilities is available at RIMS, Ranchi. The learned counsel has further
submitted that the communication of the Superintendent, Ghaghidih Central
Jail, Jamshedpur dated 04.09.2024, indicated communication to the Deputy
Commissioner, Jamshedpur that relevant treatment is not available in
Jamshedpur.
Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the
petitioner, during pendency of this criminal revision petition, and accordingly,
present petitioner, named above, is ordered to be released on bail, during
pendency of this criminal revision petition, on executing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with GR Case No. 920 of
2021, arising out of Gua PS Case No. 25 of 2021, subject to the conditions that
the petitioner will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also
submit his mobile number before the learned Court below which he will always
keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior
permission of the Court.
Accordingly, IA No. 9471 of 2024 stands disposed of.
Both the counsels have appeared.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the scanned copy of the lower Court records.
Put up this case as per its seriatim.
sbiswas (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
