Jharkhand High Court
Md. Rajan @ Sayeed @ Md. Sayeed Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.2196 of 2023
-----
Md. Rajan @ Sayeed @ Md. Sayeed Alam, aged about 30 years, S/o
Md. Mustafa, r/o Qurban Chowk, PO & PS-Hindpiri, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate
Md. Aquil, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP
------
th
Order No.10/Dated:7 January, 2025
I.A. No. 11208 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1)
of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection
with the judgment of conviction dated 13.01.2020 and order of sentence
dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Ranchi in connection
with S.T. Case No.07 of 2017/T.R No.03 of 2017 arising out of Argora
PS Case No.241 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 302, 201 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of
the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the
legal heirs of deceased for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C and
in default of payment, he is directed to undergo SI for one year. The
appellant is further directed to undergo SI for three years with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offences under Section 201 of the I.P.C and
Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment, he is directed to
undergo SI for six months each for both the offences and all the
sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been contended on
behalf of the applicant that the sole ground taken for suspension of
sentence of the applicant is that the co-accused, namely, Md. Zahid,
against whom there was similar allegation, has been enlarged on bail
vide order dated 26.04.2022 passed in I.A No. 2056 of 2020 arising out
of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.200 of 2020 by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
3. It has been contended that the case of the present applicant is identical to
that of the said co-accused, namely, Md. Zahid, who has been directed to
be released on bail by a co-ordinate Benche of this Court, therefore, it is
a fit case where the present applicant be released from judicial custody
by suspending his sentence.
4. In addition to the aforesaid ground, the period of custody has also been
taken since the applicant has already remained in custody since
10.08.2016.
5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that it is
incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the case of
the present appellant is identical to that of Md. Zahid reason being that
the co-convict, namely, Md. Zahid, as per the prosecution version and
the evidence which has come in course of the trial, was driving the
scooty, while the present appellant being the pillion driver has given
bullet injury to the deceased, as such, the allegation against the present
appellant is of the direct overt act and, hence, the complicity which has
been surfaced with respect to the commission of crime by Md. Zahid
cannot be said to be at par with the commission of crime said to be
committed by the present appellant, but he has not opposed the fact that
the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 10.08.2016.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by which the
identical co-convict, namely, Md. Zahid has been directed to be released
on bail by suspending his sentences.
7. 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.
8. The first ground taken on behalf of the appellant that the case of the
present appellant is on similar footing of the co-convict, Md. Zahid who
has been directed to be released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, therefore, this Court has examined the culpability said to be
committed by the appellant and Md. Zahid in order to come to the
conclusion about the principle of parity for the purpose of passing the
order.
9. It is evident from the materials available on record that the co-convict,
namely, Md. Zahid, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.200 of
2020, was driving the scooty, while the present appellant being the
pillion driver had given the bullet injury to the deceased. The contention,
therefore, having been made on behalf of the State that the case of the
present appellant is different from the case of the co-convict, namely,
Md. Zahid cannot be said to be just and proper reason being that the
complicity regarding the commission of crime and the mindsets of
Md. Zahid and the present appellant cannot be distinguished. If
Md. Zahid who was driving the scooty could not have driven the said
vehicle, then there was no occasion of giving bullet injury by the present
appellant.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle of parity is to be
made applicable in the present case and, accordingly, we are of the view
that the applicant has been able to make out a case for suspension of
sentence.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11208 of 2024 stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the applicant, named above, 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 learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Ranchi in connection
with S.T. Case No.07 of 2017/T.R No.03 of 2017 arising out of Argora
PS Case No.241 of 2016.
13. 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.
14. In view thereof, I.A. No. 11208 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Sudhir
