Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Rout vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 252 of 2024
Raj Kumar Rout, aged 25 years, son of Late Lakshman Rout,
resident of Village-Ghat Rasikpur, Dudhani, P.O-Dudhani, P.S-
Dumka (T), District-Dumka ...... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Rajesh Pandit, S/o Late Jamun Pandit, R/o Village-Ghat
Rosikpur (Dudhani), P.O-Dudhani, P.S-Dumka (T), District-
Dumka ....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, APP
-----------
st
06/Dated:21 March, 2025
I.A. No.2547 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated
19.04.2024 and sentence dated 24.04.2024 passed in Sessions
Trial No.208 of 2023, arising out of Dumka (T) P.S. Case
No.144 of 2023, (G.R. No.649 of 2023) by Sri Laxman Prasad,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka by which the
appellant Raj Kumar Rout has been convicted for the offence
under Section 436 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five
years and to pay the fine of Rs.2000/-.
However, the learned Court below has acquitted the
appellant for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. I.A. No.2547 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellant, during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned APP for the
State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned
judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is
illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is
submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the
appellant has been named on mere suspicion and the entire
family members of the appellant had been implicated by the
informant. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the
evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 namely Ashish Kumar
Modi, Ranjit Pandit and Prakash Pandit and even the evidence
of P.W-2-Ranjit Pandit and his brother namely Rajesh Kumar
Pandit (i.e. the informant) are contradictory to each other on the
point of occurrence. It is submitted that the appellant was in
custody during trial from 06.06.2023 to 09.01.2023 and
thereafter he is in custody after conviction since 19.04.2024 i.e.
for around more than 11 months (i.e for around 07 months) and
thus he has remained in custody for around 18 months and
hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R for
putting on fire in the shop of the informant and due to which he
sustained loss of approx Rs.6,00,000/- as his Xerox Machine
and other valuable articles were burnt. It is submitted that
P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 namely Ashish Kumar Modi, Ranjit
Pandit and Prakash Pandit have fully supported the prosecution
case. It is submitted that the I.O has also supported the
prosecution case and found that shop of the informant was burnt
causing huge loss to him. Thus, the prosecution has successfully
established his case against the appellant and hence there is no
merit in this interlocutory application and hence, the instant I.A.
No.2547 of 2025 may rejected.
6. Perused the records of learned Trial Court and considered
the submission of the parties.
7. It appears that earlier the I.A No.4647 of 2024 was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.09.2024 passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Behngra as his
Lordship then was) of this Court. Thereafter the appellant has
filed the instant interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No.2547 of
2025.
8. It appears from the record that the occurrence took place in
the night at around 1.00 p.m. However, some of the witnesses
have claimed to have seen the appellant and one Rohit Modi
fleeing away but it appears to be suspicious.
9. It appears that the learned Court below has imposed
sentence of R.I. for five years and the appellant has remained in
custody from 06.06.2023 to 09.01.2023 i.e. for around 07 month
and he is also in custody since 19.04.2024 till date i.e. for
around more than 11 months and thus he has remained in
custody for around 18 months.
10. Considering the custody of the appellant and on the facts and
in the circumstance of this case, the appellant namely, Raj Kumar
Rout is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Dumka in connection with Sessions Trial No.208 of
2023, arising out of Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.144 of 2023 (G.R.
No.649 of 2023).
11. Thus, I.A. No.2547 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed
of.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to implead
the Informant as Respondent No.2 in this case in course of the
day.
13. Issue notice to the Respondent No.2 by registered post
with A/D as well as ordinary process and for which, requisites
etc. must be filed within two weeks from today.
14. Put up this case after six weeks.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
