Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Laguri @ Govind Laguri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ananda Sen, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 813 of 2023
1. Ramesh Laguri @ Govind Laguri, aged about 43 years, son of Late
Guliya Laguri;
2. Mangal Singh Laguri @ Chhota, aged about 36 years, son of Late
Guliya Laguri; both are resident of Village and P.O.- Siringsia, P.S.-
Tonto, District- Singhbhum West.
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
-----
I.A. No. 11185 of 2025
8/ 18.11.2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants,
praying therein to suspend the sentence and release them on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
2. Prayer for bail of the appellants was earlier rejected on
19.03.2024. This is second attempt to renew their prayer for suspension of
sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2016, arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No.
15/2016, for the offence under Section(s) 147, 342/149, 323/149, 354(B)/149,
376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Witch (Daain)
Practices Act. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for twenty-five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376(D) of the
Indian Penal Code along with other sentences for the other offences.
4. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.
for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and
the Trial Court Records.
5. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the prayer for bail,
which the State availed and opposed.
6. Prayer for bail of the appellants has been renewed on the ground
that the appellants are in custody for more than nine years.
7. After going through the evidence, we find that though the
medical evidence corroborates the statement of the victim, but we cannot lose
sight of the fact that appellants have remined in custody for more than nine
years. This appeal is of the year 2023. Admittedly, there are much older
appeals pending for hearing. This instant appeal has been admitted for hearing
and this Court is not in a position to hear this appeal within a reasonable time.
The situation where appeal is admitted for hearing and the Court is not in a
position to hear appeal, where the appellant is in custody and the appellant is
praying for bail, is taken note of, by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291. In the
aforesaid judgment, at paragraph-2 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
follows: -
"2. The appellant contends in this application that pending the
hearing of the appeal he should be released on bail. Now, the
practice in this Court as also in many of the High Courts has been
not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life
imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code,
1860. The question is whether this practice should be departed
from and if so, in what circumstances. It is obvious that no
practice howsoever sanctified by usage and hallowed by time can
be allowed to prevail if it operates to cause injustice. Every
practice of the Court must find its ultimate justification in the
interest of justice. The practice not to release on bail a person
who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the
High Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has
been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should
not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence are not set
aside, but the underlying postulate of this practice was that the
appeal of such person would be disposed of within a measurable
distance of time, so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent,
he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The
rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court
is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years.
It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for
a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately
found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court ever
compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be
unjustified? Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person:
"We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a
prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your
appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your
appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be
innocent?" What confidence would such administration of justice
inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably
happen, and it has in fact happened in a few cases in this Court,
that a person may serve out his full term of imprisonment before
his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a Judge not be
overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a
person after hearing the appeal? Would it not be an affront to his
sense of justice? Of what avail would the acquittal be to such a
person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or
at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore, absolutely essential
that the practice which this Court has been following in the past
must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position
to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of
time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent
grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases
where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal
against his conviction and sentence."
8. Considering the aforesaid judgement and the period of custody
coupled with the situation that the appeal cannot be heard in near future, we
are inclined to allow this interlocutory application. Accordingly, upon
suspending the sentence, the appellants, namely, Ramesh Laguri @ Govind
Laguri and Mangal Singh Laguri @ Chhota, are directed to be released on bail
during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rs. Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2016, arising out of
Tonto P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016, with a condition that one of the bailors should
be close relative of the appellants and that they shall appear and mark their
attendance before the Registrar, Civil Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,
once in every six months till the disposal of this appeal.
9. The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
18.11.2025
R.Kr./Rahul
