Puran @ Narayan Mahto @ Puran Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6967 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Puran @ Narayan Mahto @ Puran Mahto 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. 858 of 2023
       Puran @ Narayan Mahto @ Puran Mahto, aged 36 years, son of Late Bhagat
       Mahto, resident of Village- Dama, P.O. & P.S.- Bagodar, District- Giridih.
                                                            ....     Appellant
                                    Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                               ....     Respondent
                                  ------
                 CORAM :        SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

-----

I.A. No. 14387 of 2025

6/ 18.11.2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant, 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 27.02.2024. 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. 136 of 2019, arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 151 of 2018, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default thereof, he shall further undergo to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

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. There is direct allegation against the appellant to have committed murder of the deceased. There are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, who saw that this appellant had slit the neck of the deceased. Further, the deceased had also given dying declaration that this appellant had committed the murder.

6. Considering the statements of the witnesses, we not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Thus, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.

7. The aforesaid interlocutory stands dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) 18.11.2025 R.Kr./Rahul