Jharkhand High Court
Lodro Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 783 of 2025
------
1. Lodro Oraon
2. James Dhanwar ......Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P
------
Order No: 04/ Dated: 24.11.2025
I.A No. 14428 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed through Jharkhand
High Court Legal Services Committee.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants by challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 30.11.2023 passed in S.T No. 127 of 2023 by Sri Vishwa
Nath Shukla, learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with
Anandpur P.S Case No. 17/22 by which the appellants have been
convicted for the offence Section 307/34 of the I.P.C and
sentenced to undergo R.I for four (04) years and to pay the fine of
Rs. 10,000/- each.
3. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged that both the appellants had
assaulted the informant on 30.06.2022 at early hours by "Danda"
and for which, he was referred to hospital.
4. I.A No. 14428 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during
pendency of this Criminal Apeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the
eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and they
have committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in
this case. It is submitted that the occurrence took place on
30.06.2022 but the F.I.R was lodged on 05.07.2022 i.e. after delay
of five (05) days and for which, no plausible explanation has been
given. It is submitted that even the informant has admitted that
there was no previous enmity between the parties and no reason
has been assigned for the occurrence. It is submitted that there is
no eye witness of the occurrence.
It is further submitted that the occurrence took place in
the jurisdiction of District of West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,
however, the informant travelled to Rourkela and got himself
examined by the Doctor at Rourkela instead of Chaibasa which
creates doubt on the injury sustained by the informant. It is
submitted that it is not probable that a person having sustained
injury would travel to Rourkela from Chaibasa for getting himself
examined by the Doctor. It is submitted that the appellants had
remained in custody for some period during the trial and they are
in custody since 30.11.2023 and hence, the appellants may be
enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct
allegation against both the appellants for assaulting the informant
on his head which caused bleeding from his head and caused head
injury. It is submitted that P.W-1 is the informant of this case and
has fully supported the prosecution case against both the
appellants. It is submitted that the appellant no. 2 James Dhanwar
had assaulted him by "lathi'' due to which, he sustained head
injury.
It is submitted that P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5 and P.W-6
namely Rajeshwar Dhanwar, Piyush Dhanwar, Phulmani Khakha,
Sunil Kachhap and Sunil Dhanwar had also seen the informant in
injured condition and had seen the injury on his head. It is
submitted that P.W-7 is the Doctor, who had examined the injured
informant at Rourkela and had supported the injury sustained by
the informant on his head. It is submitted that P.W-8 is the I.O of
this case who had submitted charge sheet against the appellants
and who also supported and corroborated the prosecution case and
hence, the prayer for bail of the appellants may be rejected.
7. Perused the Trial Court Records and considered the
submission of both the sides.
8. It appears that the occurrence took place on 30.06.2022
but the F.I.R was lodged on 05.07.2022 i.e. after the delay of five
(05) days.
9. It appears from the evidence of P.W-7 i.e. the Doctor that
nature of injury has not been mentioned, though, the requisition of
injury reports shows that it was found simple in nature.
10. It appears from the evidence of P.W-1 i.e. the informant
that appellant no. 2 happens to be his brother in relation and both
the appellants and the informant have got joint landed property in
the village. Though, the informant has denied the suggestion for
instituting false case against the appellants for grabbing his land.
11. It also appears that P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-4 namely
Rajesh Dhanwar, Piyush Dhanwar and Phulmani Khakha are
hearsay witnesses.
12. Considering the custody of the appellant and also
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellant
No. 1 Lodro Oraon and the Appellant No. 2 James Dhanwar are
directed to be released on bail on furnishing their bail bonds of
Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla,
learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa/or his successor Court in
connection with Anandpur P.S Case No. 17/22.
13. Thus, I.A No. 14428 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
14. Let the remuneration of Rs. 5500/- be paid to Mr. Shivam
Utkarsh Sahay, who has assisted this Court as an Amicus Curiae in
this case.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Member
Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for
the needful.
16. Office is directed to send the order at once to the learned
Court below and also to the learned Member Secretary, Jharkhand
High Court Legal Services Committee shall also inform the
pairvikar of the appellants.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 24.11.2025
Avinash/
