Suraj Jaiswal @ Suraj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6909 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Suraj Jaiswal @ Suraj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF                   JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       Cr. A (D.B.) No. 807 of 2025
                                    ---------

1. Suraj Jaiswal @ Suraj Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Late Gopal Prasad

2. Shubham Jaiswal @ Subham Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Late Gopal Prasad Both resident of H. No.25, Gadra, Bihari Tola, Near Vikash Bhawan, P.O.-Gadra, P.S.-Parsudih, Dist. East Singhbhum ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

----------

For the Appellants       : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent       : None
                                  -----------
              th
05/Dated: 17 November, 2025

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant No.2. None appears on behalf of the State.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant No.2 for grant of bail to him during pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant No.2 has been convicted for the offences under sections 326 and 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under section 304 Part-I of IPC.

4. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 that he is in custody since 01.11.2023. While referring to the impugned judgment, it has been submitted that learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment and therefore, the conviction was recorded under section 304 Part I of IPC.

5. Learned counsel adds that the appellant No.1, who was actively involved in the incident, has been granted bail by this Court in I.A. No.10653 of 2025.

6. It appears that so far as the appellant No.1 is concerned, he is said to have caught hold of the deceased while the knife blow was inflicted upon the deceased by the present appellant No.2.

7. On consideration of the above, we are not inclined to admit the appellant No.2 on bail. The prayer for bail of the appellant No.2 is, hereby, rejected at this stage.

8. I.A. No.14353 of 2025 stands rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 17/11/2025

Pappu/-