Jharkhand High Court
Jaideo Sharma @ Mistry vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 468 of 2024
Jaideo Sharma @ Mistry, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Teju Mistry, R/o
Village-Harnakundi, P.S.- Dumka (M), P.O. & District-Dumka, State-
Jharkhand --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
I.A. No. 12366 of 2024
05/05.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP
representing the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail
during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2024 and
order of sentence dated 31.05.2024 passed in S.T. No.121 of 2022
arising out of Dumka(M) P.S. Case No.37 of 2022 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka whereby the appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Sections 341/504/307 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.5000/-
under Section 307 of IPC and default of payment of fine further
directed to undergo S.I. for three months, further under Section 504
of IPC directed to undergo R.I. for one year and one month S.I.
under section 341 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The period undergone would be set off from the
punishment awarded.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he has been
languishing in custody since 25.02.2022 and was granted bail on
02.07.2022 and thereafter, in post-conviction period, he has been in
the custody since the date of conviction i.e. on 30.05.2024 till as on
date.
4. Further it has also been pointed that the learned trial Court
did not appreciate the evidence particularly the injured eye-witness
P.W.-4 vis-à-vis, medical examination report of the injured i.e.
Exhibit P-5 which has been proved by the doctor PW-6 where out
of three injuries, two of the injuries found simple in nature and one
grievous in nature, although it was not on the vital part of the body
in order to infer the intention and knowledge of the appellant to
commit the offence of attempt to murder within the meaning of
Section 307 of IPC and therefore it is submitted on behalf of the
appellant that utmost it is a case under Section 324 and 325 and not
under Section 307 of the IPC and therefore it is urged on behalf of
the appellant that let the appellant be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
submitted that all the witnesses including the injured PW-4 have
supported the case of the prosecution and one of the injuries was
grievous in nature and therefore the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant inter-alia under Section 307 of the IPC and
hence the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
depositions and other evidences available on record.
7. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka in
connection with S.T. No.121 of 2022 arising out of Dumka(M) P.S.
Case No.37 of 2022.
9. I.A. No. 12366 of 2024 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 468 of 2024
