Jharkhand High Court
Saroj Kumar Thakur Aged About 27 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 6 of 2025
....
1. Saroj Kumar Thakur aged about 27 years, S/o Badri Thakur.
2. Badri Thakur aged about 55 years S/o Late Mani Lal Thakur,
Both are residents of village - Basantpur, PO+PS:- Poraiyahat,
District- Godda .... Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
.....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. S.P Roy, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
.....
Order No: 04/Dated: 18.02.2025
I.A. No. 13731 of 2024
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of
B.N.S.S, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.11.2024 passed by
Shri Kumar Pawan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Godda in
connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 18 of 2019 arising out of Godda
(Town) P.S. Case No. 269 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1718 of
2018 and T.R No. 3692 of 2018, by which the appellants have been sentenced
and directed to undergo imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for
the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C and in default of payment of
fine, further S.I. for three (03) months and further sentenced to undergo R.I for
five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000- each for the offence under Section
452/34 of the I.P.C and in default of payment, further S.I for two (02) months
separately.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that the co-accused namely Raj Kumar Thakur who has also been
convicted, although in the separate trial being Sessions Trial No. 53/2020, has
been directed to be released on bail after suspension of sentence vide order
dated 07.02.2025 passed by this Court in an interlocutory application being
I.A No. 13875 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 14 of 2025.
3. It has been contended that the informant (P.W.4) of the instant case has been
examined as PW-2 in the Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2020 and his testimony has
been recorded with respect to the said Raj Kumar Thakur, the appellant in
Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 14 of 2025, wherein the testimony of the
informant PW-2 who has been examined in the present case as PW-4 is
exactly same, therefore, the present applicants/appellants are eligible for bail
after suspension of sentence.
4. While on the other hand, Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
5. It has been contended that he has not disputed the fact that the witness i.e.
the injured informant who has been examined as PW-2 in the Sessions Trial
No. 53 of 2020 in respect with Raj Kumar Thakur, the appellant in Criminal
Appeal (D.B) No. 14 of 2025 in T.R No. 2594 of 2020 has also been examined
as PW-4 in the Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2019 wherein the case of present
applicants has been tried and it has also not been disputed that the version of
informant is same in both the Sessions Trial.
6. We have heard 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 L.C.R. and other documents available on record.
7. In the backdrop of the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this
Court, has gone through the material available on record, has found that the
injured informant has been examined as PW-2 in the Sessions Trial No. 53 of
2020 in respect with Raj Kumar Thakur, the appellant in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 14 of 2025 and he has also been examined as PW-4 in the Sessions
Trial No. 18 of 2019 wherein the case of present applicants/appellant has been
tried.
8. The said Raj Kumar Thakur has been enlarged on bail after suspension of
sentence vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed by this Court in an interlocutory
application being I.A No. 13875 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 14 of
2025.
9. It needs to refer herein that the both the aforesaid Sessions Trial has arisen
out with same P.S Case being Godda (Town) P.S Case No. 269 of 2018.
Further, from record it is evident that injured informant has testified on the
same line in both the aforesaid Sessions Trial and the said fact has also not
been disputed by the learned A.P.P.
10. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that the present
applicants/appellants have been able to make out case for suspension of
sentence, during pendency of the instant appeal.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13731 of 2024, is hereby allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to be
released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st,
Godda in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 18 of 2019 arising out of
Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 269 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1718
of 2018 and T.R No. 3692 of 2018.
13. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above will not
prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
14. In view thereof, I. A No. 13731 of 2024 stand disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/Avinash
