Jharkhand High Court
Patit Pawan Gope @ Patit Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 738 of 2019
---------
1. Patit Pawan Gope @ Patit Gope, aged about 33 years, son of Sri
Tikaram Gope, resident of village Matkamdih, P.O. Tuta, P.S.
Ichagarh, District Saraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand).
2. Tikaram Gope, aged about 47 years, son of Rande Gope, resident
of Village Matkamdih, P.O. Tuta, P.S. Ichagarh, District Saraikella-
Kharsawan (Jharkhand).
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----------
08/Dated: 25 April, 2025:
th
I.A. No. 6442 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for keeping the
sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 15.06.2019 and 22.06.2019,
respectively passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Saraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Sessions Trial No.
No. 53 of 2014 arising out of Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 40 of 2013
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1044 of 2013 whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default
of payment fine, the appellants have further to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant no. 1 that the prayer for suspension of sentence although
has already been rejected twice vide orders dated 25.02.2020 and
09.05.2023, but the submission has been made that identically
placed convicts, namely, Tikaram Gope and Baneshwar Gope have
been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.08.2022 and 28.06.2022
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 738 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
1141 of 2019, respectively.
3. It has been contended that the case of the present applicant is
identical to that of the other co-convict persons who have been
directed to be released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
therefore, it is a fit case where the present applicant be released
from judicial custody by suspending the sentence.
4. In addition to the aforesaid ground, the period of custody has also
been taken since the applicant has already remained in custody for 5
years and 10 months.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant no. 1, on the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that therefore the appeals need to be
allowed.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, but he has not
opposed the fact that the appellant has remained in custody since for
5 years and 10 months and the aforesaid identical co-convicts have
been directed to be released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across
the findings recorded by the different Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court by which the identical co-convicts have been directed to be
released on bail by suspending their sentences.
8. In order to consider the aforesaid fact, regarding the applicability of
parity, this Court has also gone through the testimony of witnesses
as also the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the
impugned judgment, this Court has found that the matter is identical
to the co-convicts.
9. This Court, after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of
the parties has gathered therefrom that two grounds have been
taken on behalf of the appellant, first the ground of parity and
another the period of custody, is of the view that the prayer made in
instant interlocutory application needs to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6442 of 2024 stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant no. 1, namely, Patit Pawan
Gope @ Patit Gope 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 learned learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Saraikella-Kharsawan in connection
with Sessions Trial No. No. 53 of 2014 arising out of Ichagarh P.S.
Case No. 40 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1044 of 2013
12. 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.
13. In view thereof, I.A. No. 6442 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Samarth
