Jharkhand High Court
Manu Hessa vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 183 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 7005 of 2025
---------
1. Manu Hessa, son of Raju Hessa, aged about 38 years.
2. Jagmohan Bandiyan, aged about 33 years, son of Gala Bandiyan.
3. Dularam Hembram son of Sukhram Hembram age about 42 years.
4. Pahalwan Hembram son of Pandu Hembram, aged about 45 years.
All are residents of Padampur, P.O. and P.S. Kharsawan, District
Seraikella-Kharsawan.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 19 June, 2025
I.A. No. 7005 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant no.1, namely, Manu Hessa, under Section 430 (1) of the
B.N.S.S. for suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment
of conviction dated 14.11.2022 and order of sentence dated
19.11.2022 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 245 of 2013, in connection with
Seraikella P.S. Case No. 72 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant no.1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 302
of IPC and has also been sentenced for other offences in different
Sections.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant no.1 that earlier the
prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant no.1 has been
rejected vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1473 of 2023
and the instant interlocutory application has been filed renewing the
prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground the appellant no.1
has completed the sentence of 09 years and 02 months against the
maximum punishment imposed for imprisonment for life.
3. It has also been contended that the prayer for suspension of sentence
of the other co-convicts, namely, Shibu Bandiyan and Manki
Bandiyan has been considered and the said prayer has been allowed
by suspending the sentence vide order dated 08.05.2025 and
29.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 6038 of 2025 [Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 171 of 2023] and I.A. No. 4058 of 2025 [Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 186 of 2023], respectively.
4. It has also been contended that while considering the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellants of the aforesaid appeals, this
Court has taken into consideration the age of the appellants as also
the period of custody, i.e., they had completed sentence of about 09
years and 01 month against the maximum punishment for life.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant no.1, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the prayer for suspension of sentence of
the present appellant no.1 may also be considered and the instant
interlocutory application may be allowed.
6. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent-State has submitted that the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant no.1 has earlier been rejected
vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1473 of 2023 but he
is fair enough not to dispute the fact that the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the other co-convicts, namely, Shibu Bandiyan and
Manki Bandiya has been considered by allowing the prayer for
suspension of sentence on the ground of age and period of custody,
i.e., they had completed 09 years and 01 month of sentence against
the maximum punishment for life.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of the parties.
8. This Court has taken into consideration that the appellant has
completed about 09 years 02 months of sentence against the
maximum punishment for life as also that the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the other co-convicts, namely, Shibu Bandiyan and
Manki Bandiyan has been considered and the said prayer has been
allowed by suspending the sentence vide order dated 08.05.2025 and
29.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 6038 of 2025 [Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 171 of 2023] and I.A. No. 4058 of 2025 [Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 186 of 2023], respectively.
9. This Court has also taken into consideration that one of the grounds,
while allowing the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellants of the aforesaid appeals, was that the appellants had
already completed the sentence of 09 years and 01 month and here,
in the case of the present appellant no.1, he has also undergone
sentence of 09 years and 02 months, as such, this Court is of the
view that the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant no.1
of the present appeal is fit to be considered.
10. The prayer for suspension of sentence although has earlier been
rejected but this Court, considering the fact that the appeal is of the
year 2023 and is not likely to be taken up in near future as also the
appellant no.1 has already undergone sentence of 09 years and 01
months, as such, is of the view that the instant interlocutory
application may be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
12. In view thereof, the appellant no.1, namely, Manu Hessa, 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 District and Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in
connection with S.T. Case No. 245 of 2013 arising out of Seraikella
P.S. Case No. 72 of 2012.
13. 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.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
