Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 674 of 2018
With
I.A. No. 1569 of 2025
---------
Deepak Mehta, aged about 25 years, son of Akshaybar Mehta,
resident of Village-Sowa, P.O.-Karimandih, P.S.-Haidarnagar,
District-Palamau (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Madhav Prasad , Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 24 February, 2025
I.A. No. 1569 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence provisionally in connection with the judgment of conviction
dated 18.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 25.04.2018 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge,
Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of
IPC and sentence to undergo maximum punishment for life.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the instant
interlocutory application has been filed for provisional suspension of
sentence so as to attend the marriage ceremony of his sister.
3. The matter was heard on 10.02.2025 wherein the learned counsel for
the respondent-State was granted time to seek instruction with
respect to the present interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1569
of 2025.
4. The learned State counsel has submitted that an objection affidavit
has been filed wherein it has been contended that there is internal
input so far as the conduct of the appellant is concerned since it has
come that the appellant is involved in conspiring with the persons
outside who are not languishing in judicial custody.
5. It has also come that if the appellant will be released from judicial
custody, then there is every likelihood of his absconding.
6. It has also been submitted that on merit the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the present appellant has been dealt with by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court twice and taking into consideration the
material surfaced in course of trial, the prayer for suspension of
sentence had already been rejected on both occasions.
7. It has further been submitted that the marriage of the sister of the
appellant is to be solemnized for which his father is there, as, such,
taking into consideration the nature of crime committed by the
appellant, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence provisionally
so as the appellant may attend the marriage ceremony of his sister.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the submission made in the instant interlocutory application as also
the affidavit-in-objection.
9. It needs to refer herein that the allegation against the appellant is of
commission of crime under Section 302 IPC.
10. It appears from the discussion made by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment that the allegation against the appellant is very
specific as is evident from the testimony of the witnesses. The
commission of crime has also been corroborated by the FSL report.
11. The prayer for suspension of sentence of the present appellant has
already been dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
merit while dealing with the interlocutory application being I.A. No.
5076 of 2018 which was rejected vide order dated 31.07.2018 and
further the prayer having been reviewed by filing another
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3857 of 2021 which has also
been rejected vide order dated 09.02.2022.
12. So far as the present interlocutory application is concerned, the fact
about the marriage is not being disputed by the learned State counsel
but the ground which has been taken regarding the conduct of the
present appellant against whom there is internal input of conspiring
even remaining in custody. It has also come that if the appellant will
be released, then there is chance of his absconding.
13. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that
the instant interlocutory application is not fit to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
1569 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Saurabh/-
