Jharkhand High Court
Gulshan Mundu Aged About 49 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand .. .. ... Op on 24 September, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 985 of 2024
Gulshan Mundu aged about 49 years, son of Elicharan Mundu, resident of
village-Kadma, PO & PS-Khunti, District-Khunti .. .. ..Petitioner
--VERSUS--
The State of Jharkhand .. .. ... OP
---------
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP
---------
05/ 24.09.2024
I.A. No.8554 of 2024
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of the criminal revision.
The instant criminal revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 whereby and
whereunder the appellate court has pleased to acquit other convicts,
however, so far as this petitioner is concerned he has confirmed the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.06.2018 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in Khunti P.S. Case No.136
of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No.334 of 2010 by which the petitioner
has been held guilty for the offence under various sections of the IPC and
has been sentenced variously however with the maximum sentence of 7
years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner before submitting any other
ground has stated that the petitioner has already spent 3 years 5 months and
5 days of the imposed maximum period of 7 years and therefore that being
almost half the custody period and that may be considered while
considering this prayer for suspension of sentence. He has submitted that
the custodial period is also indicated in paragraph 14 of this interlocutory
application.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is
no independent witness to this case and the other co-convicts have been
acquitted. He has further stated that the learned trial court has also imposed
the maximum sentence in a magisterial trial. He has further submitted that it
is unlikely that the revision will be heard in the near future therefore he may
be allowed the privilege of suspension of sentence.
The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that the witnesses who have been examined during the trial
have deposed against the petitioner and the learned counsel has pointed out
that PW2 to PW11 have deposed against the petitioner and therefore bail
may not be allowed to the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, noted the
submissions and gone through the records of the case and also taking into
account the custodial period, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on
executing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with G.R. Case No.334 of
2010, arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No.136 of 2010.
Accordingly, I.A. No.8554 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed
of.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the lower court records.
Put up this case after four weeks.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
R.K./
