Jharkhand High Court
Sujit Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.407 of 2025
....
Sujit Kumar Mahato, aged about 22 years, son of Bhaskar
Mahato, Resident of Haludbani, P.O. Rashiknagar, P.S.-Boddam,
District Singhbhum (East)
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP
......
th
Order No.04/19 November 2025
I.A. No.12825 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 21.01.2025 passed by Sri Sachindra Nath Sinha, learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil in Sessions Trial Case No.114
of 2023 arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case No.13/2023, by which the
appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections
307,326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (05) years
and R.I. for four (04) years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/- and
to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively.
However, all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. I.A. No.12825 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP
for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below is illegal, and not sustainable in eye of law. It
is submitted that the wife of the injured was informant in this case
but later on she was made accused in this case. However, she was
acquitted by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the
appellant is in custody since 23.03.2023 i.e. more than two (02)
years and seven (07) months which is half of the custody of the
sentence and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of
the bail of the appellant. It is submitted that there is a direct
allegation against the appellant for assaulting the Informant and for
causing grievous injury in his abdomen which caused profused
bleeding. It is submitted that the PW-7 is the doctor who has found
grievous injury on the injured. It is submitted that the PW-3
namely Indrajeet Mahato i.e. the injured himself has supported the
prosecution case against the appellant for assaulting him by
wearing helmet. It is further submitted that the appellant and the
wife of the injured (i.e. the Informant) had planned a conspiracy to
kill the husband of Informant and hence the prayer of the bail of
the appellant may be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the Informant has
lodged the FIR for assaulting her husband on 12.02.2023 under
Section 307/34 of IPC against the unknown person.
7. It appears that during the course of investigation, the role
of Informant was suspected and she had admitted that she had love
affair with the appellant and as such she was made accused in this
case later on.
8. It appears that PW-3 is the injured namely Indrajeet
Mahato who is the husband of the Informant, has fully supported
and corroborated the case against the appellant.
9. It further appears that even the PW-3 the injured himself
admitted and stated that his wife caught hold of him instead of
appellant.
10. It further appears even the wife of the injured had
introduced with the appellant who was son of her Bua (i.e. Aunt).
11. It appears that the appellant is in custody since 23.03.2023
i.e. more than two (02) years and seven (07) months.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely
Sujit Kumar Mahato is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction Sri
Sachindra Nath Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil
or/his Successor Court in connection with Sessions Trial Case
No.114 of 2023 arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case No.13/2023
subject to the condition that one of the bailers must be the own
relative of the appellant and also subject to the condition that the
appellant shall pay Rs.50,000/- at the time of furnishing the bail
bonds as compensation to the victim namely Indrajeet Mahato
before the learned Court below and also subject to the condition
that the appellant shall not threaten the Informant after being
release from jail, failing which, the prosecution will be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his bail.
13. The learned Trial Court is directed to disburse the said
Rs.50,000/- to the Informant namely Indrajeet Mahato through
PLV, Saraikela and DLSA Saraikela.
14. Thus, I.A. No.12885 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated 19.11.2025
Nishant/-
