Jharkhand High Court
Babita Devi Aged About 25 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 110 of 2021
---------
Babita Devi aged about 25 years, w/o Pappu Mahto, Resident of Village-
Pokharia, P.O. and P.S.-Ichak, Dist. Hazaribag. ....... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Karuna Devi, wife of Nirmal Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village-
Pokharia, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, Dist. Hazaribag ....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, APP
-----------
nd
14/Dated: 22 April 2025
I.A. No. 12555 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1)
of the BNSS,2023. for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection
with the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2018 and order of sentence
dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Session's Judge-XIV,
Hazaribag in connection with S.T. Case No. 104 of 2016, arising out
Ichak P.S. Case No. 190 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4871
of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.
20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment
for 10 months. Further she has been sentenced six years rigorous
imprisonment for the sentence u/s 201 of the IPC and shall also be liable
to fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default of payment of fine she would further
undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that
although the prayer for suspension of sentence was dismissed as not
pressed vide order dated 20.10.2021 in I.A. No. 5407 of 2021, but her
prayer has been renewed on the ground of long custody i.e. more than 9
years.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant based upon the period of custody
has emphatically argued that the prayer for suspension of sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal may be considered.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned APP
appearing for the State however has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence, so far as involvement of appellant in the
commission of crime is concerned, however, he has not disputed the
period of custody.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
appreciation of the rival submissions of the learned counsel on behalf of
the parties, it is evident that although the prayer for suspension of
sentence had been withdrawn on earlier occasion, but prayer has been
renewed on the ground of custody of the appellant which is more than 9
years 4 months approximately.
6. Accordingly, taking into consideration the period of custody of the
appellant, this Court is of the view that the interlocutory application
being I.A. No.12555 of 2024 deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.12555 of 2024
stands allowed.
8. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, 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 Additional Session's Judge-
XIV, Hazaribag, in connection with S.T. Case No. 104 of 2016, arising
out Ichak P.S. Case No. 190 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.
4871 of 2015.
9. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice
the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this
Court for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/Binit
