Jharkhand High Court
Ratanlal Bandiya 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. 881 of 2023
Ratanlal Bandiya, aged about 55 years, son of Selai Bandiya, resident of
Padampur, P.O. & P.S.- Kharsawan, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan.
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kamar Mishra, A.P.P.
-----
I.A. No. 9984 of 2025
6/ 18.11.2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants,
praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
2. Prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected on
06.03.2024. This is second attempt to renew his prayer for suspension of
sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection
with Sessions Trial No.83 of 2014 arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.72
of 2012 (G.R. Case No.816 of 2012), for the offence under Sections
147/148/149/452/341/323/ 364/302/201 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the
Prevention of Witch (Diaan) Practices Act. He has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC along with other sentences.
4. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant 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 and half years.
7. After going through the evidence, we find that there is allegation
against the appellant and co-accused that they have lynched the wife of the
informant, branding her as a witch. We are not entering into detail merit of the
case, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that this appellant has remined in
custody for more than nine and half 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 appellant, namely, Ratanlal Bandiya is directed
to be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella,
in connection with Sessions Trial No.83 of 2014 arising out of Seraikella P.S.
Case No.72 of 2012 (G.R. Case No.816 of 2012), with a condition that one of
the bailors should be close relative of the appellant and that he shall appear
and mark his attendance before the Registrar, Civil Court, Seraikella, 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
