Jharkhand High Court
Md. Imran vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 554 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 11009 of 2025
---------
Md. Imran, aged about 27 years, s/o Late Hasim R/o Village-
Makasadpur (Hazaratganj), P.O. & P.S.-Kasimpur Bazar, District-
Munger (Bihar).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.
-----------
th
04/Dated: 26 August, 2025
I.A. No. 11009 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence dated 15.03.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in connection with
Sessions Trial No.142 of 2022, arising out of Bishnugarh P.S. Case
No.218 of 2021 [G.R. Case No.46 of 2022] whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a)/35 of the Arms Act and in
default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo
R.I. for 06 months. The appellant has also been sentenced to under
R.I. for 07 years along with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and in default of
payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for 06
months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, at the outset, that
earlier to the present interlocutory application, one another
interlocutory application for suspension of sentence had been
preferred being I.A. No. 12685 of 2024 which had been dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 21.01.2025 and thereafter, the present
interlocutory application has been filed.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case as he has
committed no such offence as is alleged against him.
4. It has been contended that nothing incriminating material has been
recovered from the possession of the present appellant and he has
been apprehended while he was near the premises in which some
arms and ammunition was recovered as also the appellant is not the
owner of the said premises.
5. It has been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons,
namely, Sonu Alam @ Md. Sonu Alam; Md. Akhtar and; Md.
Shamim Akhtar have already been enlarged on bail during pendency
of the appeal by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders
dated 07.05.2025; 13.06.2025 and; 07.07.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.679 of 2023 [I.A. No. 4972 of 2025]; Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.587 of 2023 [I.A. No. 6926 of 2025] and; Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.664 of 2023 [I.A. No. 7098 of 2025], respectively.
6. It has also been contended that the appellant was in judicial custody
from 14.11.2021 till 20.04.2022 and since the date of judgment, he is
languishing in judicial custody.
7. While, on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence but she is fair enough not to
dispute the fact regarding bail having been granted during pendency
of the appeal in favour of the co-accused persons, namely, Sonu
Alam @ Md. Sonu Alam; Md. Akhtar and; Md. Shamim Akhtar.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court record and
the exhibit available therein.
9. This Court has gone through the orders passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court granting bail to the co-accused persons, namely
Sonu Alam @ Md. Sonu Alam; Md. Akhtar and; Md. Shamim
Akhtar vide orders dated 07.05.2025; 13.06.2025 and; 07.07.2025
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.679 of 2023 [I.A. No. 4972 of 2025];
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.587 of 2023 [I.A. No. 6926 of 2025] and; Cr.
Appeal (DB) No.664 of 2023 [I.A. No. 7098 of 2025], respectively.
10. This Court has taken into consideration that during the trial, the
appellant was in judicial custody from 14.11.2021 till 20.04.2022
thereafter, since the date of judgment, he is languishing in judicial
custody and also taken into consideration the fact that the co-accused
persons have been granted the privilege of bail during pendency of
the appeal which has not been disputed by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, as such, this
Court is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with
respect to the present appellant.
11. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed, as
such, disposed of.
12. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in
connection with Sessions Trial No.142 of 2022, arising out of
Bishnugarh P.S. Case No.218 of 2021 [G.R. Case No.46 of 2022].
13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Saurabh/-
