Jharkhand High Court

Nityanand Singh @ Babu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 413 of 2023
 Nityanand Singh @ Babu, aged about 39 Years, son of Jatashankar Prasad
 Singh, resident of- Flat No. 501, Dimna Road,Mango,Madhu Sudan
 Tekchand Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist- Singhbhum
 (E).                                                  ...       Appellant

                                    Versus
 The State of Jharkhand                                 ...Respondent
                                ----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti,A.P.P.

---------

Order No.13/Dated 4th September, 2025

I.A. No.10628 of 2025

1. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has submitted that in course of pendency of the instant interlocutory

application, an another interlocutory application being I.A. No.

11748 of 2025 has been filed, due to the reason that in the

meanwhile, the appellant has been detected with the malignancy that

has been found to be oral malignancy and to that effect, a certificate

has also been provided by the RIMS, where the appellant is being

treated.

2. The prayer, therefore, has been made that since the medical

ground has been taken in the subsequent interlocutory application,

wherein the prayer has been made for suspension of sentence or in alternative for provisional bail by suspending sentence for a period

of three months, for getting better treatment outside Ranchi. But the

said medical certificate is not available in the I.A. No. 10628 of

2025and hence, he has sought for leave of this Court not to press the

interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10628 of 2025.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any

objection.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10628 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed

and as such, disposed of.

I.A. 11748 of 2025

5. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for

suspension of sentenceor in alternative for grant of provisional bail

in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 04.02.2023 and

order of sentence dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 183

of 2007, arising out of Gua P.S. Case No. 83 of 2006 whereby and

whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence

under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the

earlier prayer for suspension of sentence had been made by filing the

Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 4356 of 2025, but the said

application has not been pressed and as such, was dismissed vide

order dated 07.05.2025.

7. Subsequent thereto, an InterlocutoryApplication has been filed being

I.A. No. 10628 of 2025 on 24.07.2025 by renewing the prayer for

suspension of sentence on the ground that he has remained in

custody for more than 3 years and 8 months.

8. However, the said Interlocutory Application has also not been

pressed as referred herein above.

9. It is also submitted that one co-convict, namely, Dharmendra Kumar

Singhhas been directed to be release on bail after suspension of the

sentence vide order dated 07.07.2025passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in I.A. No. 7953 of 2025 arising out of Criminal

Appeal (DB) No. 616 of 2023.

10. The learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the

appellant is almost identical to that of the co-convict namely,

Dharmendra Kumar Singh, in addition, thereto, the present appellant

is suffering from fourth stage oral malignancy.

11. In support of the statement that the appellant/applicant is suffering

from oral malignancy has filed Biopsy Report by way of the

supplementary affidavit dated 02.09.2025.

12. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted

that the appellant is in acute pain and for better treatment, he intends

to go outside for getting expert treatment and as such, the prayer

made in the interlocutory application may be considered.

13. While on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, raised objection

so far as the culpability of the present appellant as has been proved

in course of the trial as per the impugned judgment but she is fair

enough not to oppose the prayer for bail on the basis of the medical

reports which have been placed to her by Dr. Hirendra Birua,

Medical Superintendent, RIMS, Ranchialong with Dr. Ajoy Kumar,

Professor Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental

Institute, RIMS.

14. The said report, as per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

has been produced in pursuant to the order passed by this Court

dated 02.09.2025 passed in the instant interlocutory application.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

16. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein the

order passed by this Court dated 02.09.2025 in the instant

interlocutory application by calling upon a report from the RIMS,

for the reference, the said order is being referred herein:-

"5. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that the entire medical report of the treatment is required to be seen.

6. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is directed to produce the entire medical report of the appellant on the next date of hearing.

7. In the meanwhile, additional affidavit, if any, be filed brining on record the additional documents along with the medical report, subject to availability."

17. Consequent to the aforesaid direction the supplementary affidavit

dated 02.09.2025 has been filed by the appellant/applicant which has

taken on record appending the copy of the biopsy report.

18. Further, the copy of medical report of the applicant has also been

filed by the state andDr. Hirendra Birua, Medical Superintendent,

RIMS, Ranchi along with Dr. Ajoy Kumar, Professor Department of

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Institute, RIMSare present

along with original thereof.

19. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the said report

for its perusal of this Court along with the original copy thereof.

20. This Court has gone through the original record pertaining to the

course of treatment and the diagnosisof the present

applicant/appellant. The said record also contains the treatment

summery based upon the various reports along with the biopsy

report.

21. The copy of the said report and the supplementary affidavit is

being taken on record.

22. We have perused the reports as also the biopsy report dated

13.08.2025, wherein finding has been given in the said report is,

Malignant Transformation of OSMF. The diagnosis has been given

in the treatment summary.

23. This Court has also interacted with the Medical Superintendent,

RIMS who has informed to this Court that the appellant has the

fourth stage of the oral malignancy.

24. This Court is consciousabout the settled position of the law that

on the medical ground, the prayer for suspension of sentence cannot

be allowed, and only in exceptional casesthe prayer for suspension

of sentence can be allowed where the medical condition is serious.

25. Further, there is no denying that the act of preserving health of a

prisoner is one of the rights of the prisoners as interpreted by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. The prisoners in jail have

acceptable medical infrastructure in consonance with the duty and

legal obligation of the State to provide access to medical care for all

prisoners. The jurisprudence of medical care and attention to the

prisoners mandates that timely medical care must be available to all

prisoners, and in appropriate cases, timely medical care should be

made available without interruption. In this regard, a reference can be

made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of In Re

Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658, for ready

reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

58.8. Providing medical assistance and facilities to inmates in prisons needs no reaffirmation. The right to health is undoubtedly a human right and all State Governments should concentrate on making this a reality for all, including prisoners. The experiences in Karnataka, West Bengal and Delhi to the effect that medical facilities in prisons do not meet minimum standards of care is an indication that the human right to health is not given adequate importance in prisons and that may also be one of the causes of unnatural deaths in prisons. The State Governments are directed to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever necessary..."

26. This Court considering the fact that the appellant is at the fourth

stage of the oral malignancy as has been informed by the Medical

Superintendent, RIMSand the aforesaid statement has also been

substantiated from the Biopsy Report as available in the record.

Thus, herein the medical necessity has convincingly shown that the

applicant/appellant concerned has health challenges of a nature that

his confinement in the prison will cause threat to his life.

27. In the aforesaid context this Court is of the view that the present

Interlocutory Appeal needs to be allowed.

28. In consequence thereof, during pendency of the instant appeal, the

appellant, above named is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)