Jharkhand High Court
Tilakman Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1141 of 2024
-------
Tilakman Sahu, aged about 44 years, son of Bharat Sahu, resident
of Murukela, P.O. + P.S. - Palkot, District - Gumla, 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. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
-------
Order No.04/Dated- 03.03.2025
I.A. No.2175 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430(1) and (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 25.06.2024
passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Ranchi in
connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002(P), arising out of Palkot P.S.
Case No.05 of 2002 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 3(5) of the Prevention of
Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment (R.I.) for 8 years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 8 months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where, without following the statutory command as provided under
Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA),
2002, the convicted is based.
3. It has been contended that the aforesaid provisions are exception to
Section 25 of the Evidence Act and as such, the same was to be followed
mandatorily but skipping the same, the learned trial court believing
upon the version of the prosecution that the query was made to the
appellant by recording his satisfaction at the time of recording the
confession.
4. It has been contended that the law is well-settled that if any
provision is made in any of the statutory command, the same is to be
followed. The same is also very relevant in the matter where the issue of
personal liberty is concerned.
5. It has further been contended that the appellant was all along on bail
and in the meanwhile, there was no reference of any overt act said to be
committed said to attract the said Act as defined under the Section 15 of
the U.A.P. Act, 1967. It has also been submitted that the appellant is
having no criminal antecedent and as such, it is a fit case where the
sentence may be suspended.
6. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned counsel
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
7. It has been contended that the requirement as provided under
Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the POTA Act, 2002 has been followed as it
would be evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court record.
9. We have also gone through the provision as contained under
Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA),
2002. The aforesaid statutory provision provides that the person from
whom a confession has been recorded under sub-section (1), shall be
produced before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the original statement of
confession, written or recorded on mechanical or electronic device
within forty-eight hours.
10. We, in order to consider the aforesaid applicability of the aforesaid
provision in the present case has found that no such endeavour has been
taken by the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid fact has also not been
disputed by learned State counsel.
11. We have also gone through the order passing sentence dated
25.06.2024 in order to assess the argument that the argument made on
behalf of the appellant that the appellant was all along on bail but there
is no reference of any criminal antecedent said to be committed and he
has been directed to be surrendered on the ground of the conviction
vide impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024.
12. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that it is a
case where the sentence is being suspended.
13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
2175 of 2025 stands allowed.
14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Commissioner-cum-
Special Judge, Ranchi in connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002(P),
arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.05 of 2002.
15. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice
the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin-Sunil
