Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 244 of 2024
---------
Rajesh Rai ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
---------
08/13.06.2025 It appears from the report sent by Sri
Rajeev Ranjan, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I,
Deoghar, vide letter dated 29.04.2025, that bail of the
Appellant, namely Rajesh Rai has been cancelled on
06.07.2022. It also reveals from the said report that
on 22.12.2021 an Information was given to the
learned Trial Court that the Appellant was in Giridih
Jail in connection with S.T. Case No. 104 of 2021 and
accordingly, Production Warrant was issued against
him but he was never produced in the Court and as
no step has been taken by the Appellant in the case,
hence his bail was cancelled on 06.07.2022.
Thereafter, as per order dated 26.09.2023, trial of the
case proceeded in the absence of the Appellant and he
was convicted vide judgment dated 15.12.2023.
Let this report be kept on record of this
case.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 15.12.2023 and sentence dated
09.01.2024, passed by Sanjay Kumar Choudhary,
learned Addl. Session Judge-I, Deoghar in Sessions
Trial No. 22 of 2010, arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case
No. 128 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 322
of 2009, by which the Appellant, namely Rajesh Rai
has been convicted for the offence under Sections 402
of I.P.C. and under Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven (07) years for
the offence under Section 402 I.P.C. and R.I. for Three
(03) years for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the
Arms Act and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/-
respectively. However, all the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.
It appears that two other persons,
namely Bablu Kumar Singh @ Sanoj Kumar Singh and
Abhishek Sinha @ Kalu were also convicted by the
said judgment and sentence passed on different
counts.
3. The instant Interlocutory Application has been
filed on behalf of the Appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal.
4. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that while the
Informant along with other Police personnel were on
patrolling duty and also collecting Information with regard
to the General Election of the year 2009 and when they
arrived near Deosangh, then he got information that some
miscreants have assembled in the house of one Sufal
Kumar Singh in Deosangh Mohalla and they were
planning to commit crime. Thereafter, the Informant and
the patrolling party surrounded the said house and found
Five persons sitting on a Chowki and then all the five
persons, including the appellant, were apprehended and
seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent
witnesses, namely Sufal Kumar Singh and Jitendra
Kumar Yadav. It is alleged that one revolver (SAF Kanpur
in 2007 K.3368) and three mobile phones were recovered
from the possession of the Appellant, whereas other
incriminating articles were recovered from the possession
of other co-convicts.
5. Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy,
learned counsel for the Appellant and Rajesh Kumar,
learned A.P.P.
6. It is submitted that impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence is illegal and not sustainable in
law. It is submitted that no independent witness has been
examined and all the witnesses examined are police
officials. It is submitted that even Sufal Kumar Singh and
Jitendra Kumar Yadav were not examined by the
prosecution, who were the independent witnesses and
seizure list witnesses. It is submitted that the Appellant
has remained in custody for around Four year Five
months and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has
opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the
Appellant was trying to commit a heinous crime and
he was apprehended by the Police Personnels. It is
submitted that during trial the police personnel have
been examined as witnesses and all of them have fully
supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that
the Informant and the I.O. have also been examined
and they have supported the prosecution case. It is
submitted that the recovery of articles from the
Appellant and other co-convicts is proved, as such
there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant
may be rejected.
8. Perused the Lower Court Record and
considered the submission of both sides and also the
custody report sent by the Office of the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Giridih vide Letter No.
11039 dated 03.12.2024 and also the letter No. 73
dated 25.04.2025, sent by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-I, Deohgar.
9. It reveals that the Appellant and
others were apprehended by the Police Personnels
during the preparation to commit dacoity and certain
fire arms and cartridges were also recovered. The
police is alleged to have recovered one pistol and
three mobile phone from the possession of the
Appellant.
10. It reveals that the prosecution had
examined Eight (08) witnesses and all of them were
also police personnels.
11. It further reveals that the seizure
witnesses, who were also independent witnesses,
namely Sufal Kumar Singh and Jitendra Kumar
Yadav had not been examined.
12. It reveals from the counter affidavit,
enclosing the reports of the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Deoghar and Giridih regarding custody of the
Appellant in connection with S.C. No. 22(A) of 2010,
arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 128 of 2009,
that the Appellant was in custody in Central Jail,
Deoghar from 21.04.2009 till 05.06.2009, i.e. One
month 16 days and again he was in Central Jail,
Deoghar from 19.11.2013 to 05.05.2014, i.e. Five
months Seventeen days. The appellant was also in
custody in Central Jail, Giridih from 05.05.2014 till
11.01.2015, i.e. for around Eight months and Six
days. Thereafter, the Appellant was in custody in
Central Jail, Deoghar from 11.01.2015 to
29.07.2015, i.e. Six months 19 days and again in
Central Jail, Giridih from 29.07.2015 till 11.11.2015,
i.e. for Three months 13 days, i.e. total Two years
One month and 11 days.
13. It further reveals that the Appellant is
presently in custody since 06.07.2022 till date, i.e.
for around Three years.
Thus, the Appellant has been in custody
for more than Five years.
14. Considering the period of custody and
on the facts and in the circumstances of this case,
the sentence of the Appellant is suspended and the
Appellant, namely Rajesh Rai is directed to be
released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2010, arising out of Deoghar
P.S. Case No. 128 of 2009, to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar.
15. I.A. No. 10300 of 2024 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
