Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 23 of 2025
------
1. Chandan Kumar Gupta, S/o Doman Sah, aged about 29 years
2. Doman Sao, S/o Late Jagdish Sah, aged about 62 years,
3. Satyendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Doman Sah, aged about 23 years,
4. Birendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Doman Sah, aged about 21 years.
All resident of village:- Raro, P.O. & P.S. - Dandai, District-
Garhwa ......Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P
------
Order No: 03/ Dated: 08.04.2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants by challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.12.2024 passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned
Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T Case No. 351 of 2019
corresponding to G.R No. 1138 of 2019 (arising out of Dandai
P.S. Case No. 93/2019 by which the appellants have been found
guilty for the offences under Section 341/34, 325/34 and 504/34
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I for five
(05) years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under
Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence
was passed with regard to other offences.
However, the learned Court below has acquitted the
appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C.
2. I.A No. 605 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during
the pendency of this instant Criminal Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in
the eye of law. It is submitted that both the parties are relatives
and the appellants have got land dispute with the informant and
his family members which has been admitted by the witnesses of
the informant also.
4. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the
injured persons are simple in nature and not on the vital part of the
body except injury no.3 of the informant which is grievous in
nature. It is submitted that there is allegation of assaulting the
informant by tangi but the injury on the person of the informant
was found to be simple in nature. It is further submitted that the
appellants no. 1, 2 and 3 have remained in custody from
28.07.2019 to 28.11.2019 (i.e for around four months) and
appellant no. 4 has remained in custody from 03.08.2019 to
28.11.2019 (i.e for around three and half months). Thereafter, they
are in custody since 11.12.2024 (i.e for around four months) and
hence, the appellants may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the
appellants for assaulting the informant and his family members
and causing head injury on the person of the informant. It is
submitted that PW-9 is the informant in this case and who has
fully supported his case and he was referred to Sadar Hospital,
Garhwa and C.T Scan was done. It is submitted that even PW-2
Dr. Dipak Kr. Singh and PW-8 is Dr. Jyaulhaque Ansari had found
injury on the person of the informant Jai Kumar Gupta and Sunil
Kumar Gupta and injury report of the injured has been marked as
Exhibit-1, Exhibit-3 and X-Ray report is marked as Exhibit-4
whereas, C.T. Scan report was marked as Exhibit-5. However,
PW-5 Ashish Paswan (i.e. the Tractor driver of the informant) had
sustained fracture injury and hence, the prayer for bail of the
appellants may be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the
submission of both the sides.
8. It appears from the F.I.R and deposition of the informant
PW-9 Jaikumar Sah that the Appellant No. 1 Chandan Kumar
Gupta had assaulted him on his head by tangi due to which he
sustained cut injuries on his head and blood had started oozing out
and thereafter, he was assaulted by the Appellant no.4 Birendra
Kumar Gupta on his hand due to which his right hand was
fractured. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
Appellant No.1 Chandan Kumar Gupta at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Appellant No. 1
Chandan Kumar Gupta is, hereby, rejected at this stage.
10. So far as the Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, it
would appear that Appellant No. 4 Birendra Kumar Gupta had
assaulted the informant by lathi on his hand due to which his right
hand was fractured whereas, there has been general and omnibus
allegations levelled against the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 namely
Doman Sao and Satyendra Kumar Gupta respectively.
11. Considering their custody and also considering the fact
that general and omnibus allegation have been levelled against the
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and also considering the fact that the
Appellant No. 4 had assaulted the informant by lathi on his right
hand and not with the intention to commit his murder, the
Appellant Nos. 2 Doman Sao, Appellant No. 3 Satyendra Kumar
Gupta and Appellant No. 4 Birendra Kumar Gupta are directed to
be released on bail on furnishing their respective bail bonds of
Rs. 15.000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa
in S.T Case No. 351 of 2019 corresponding to G.R No. 1138 of
2019 (arising out of Dandai P.S. Case No. 93/2019).
12. I.A No. 605 of 2025 is allowed in part and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
