Jharkhand High Court
Ropna Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1541 of 2024
----
Ropna Oraon ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P
--------
th
Order No. 07 : Dated 19 February, 2025
I.A. No. 11256 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of appellant, under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for
suspension of sentence dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2018 arising
out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to
G.R. No. 2039 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been found guilty for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C.
and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and Section 3 of Explosive
Substance Act accordingly was sentenced to undergo R.I. for
7 years, for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 I.P.C.,
apart from a fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default undergo S.I. for 4
months. He is further sentenced to undergo R.I for five years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-for committing offence
punishable u/s 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959 in default of fine
he shall undergo S.I. for 3 months only and he shall further
to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-
for committing offence punishable u/s 3 of explosive
substance Act and in default of fine he shall undergo S.I. for
06 months only and all the sentences shall run concurrently
and during under trial period be set off.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case
even though nothing has been recovered from his possession.
However, recovery is being said to be there by marking the
seizure list but no signature has been obtained thereon and
as such the said seizure list has no evidentiary value in the
eye of law.
3. It has submitted that out of the maximum sentence of
10 years, as imposed upon the appellant, the appellant has
already undergo about 6 years 9 months of sentence i.e.,
more than half of the sentence.
4. It has further been submitted that the appeal is of the
year 2024 and as such there is no likelihood of taking up of
the appeal in near future.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
6. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence, however, learned State counsel is fair enough in
admitting the fact that the appellant has remained in custody
for more than half of the custody.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as
available in the Lower Court Records.
8. The fact that the petitioner has undergo about 6 years 9
months i.e., more than half of the sentence in custody out of
the maximum sentence of 10 years, is not in dispute.
9. Further, the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no
likelihood of taking up of the appeal in near future as such,
this Court is of the view that since the appellant has
remained in custody for more than half of the sentence, the
sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal.
10. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is
allowed.
11. 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 Judicial
Commissioner-XII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in
Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2018 arising out of Chanho P.S.
Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 2039 of 2018.
12. 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.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Alankar/
