Jharkhand High Court
Jaleshwar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 238 of 2025
1.Jaleshwar Paswan
2.Sumitra Devi
3.Mahavir Paswan @ Mahabir Paswan
4.Sunita Devi
5.Anuj Paswan
6.Arvind Paswan @ Arbind Paswan
7.Vikas Paswan @ Bikash Paswan ...... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Uday Paswan ....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. R.S Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
-----------
th
04/Dated:08 September, 2025
I.A. No.6318 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated
25.02.2025 and sentence dated 28.02.2025 passed by Sri S.M.
Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in
Sessions Trial No.07 of 2017, arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case
No.53 of 2014 by which all the appellants have been convicted
for the offences under Section 307/149 and 148 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (05) years and pay fine of
Rs.5,000/ and R.I. for two (02) years and pay fine of Rs.2,500/-
each respectively.
However, all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned APP for the State.
3. I.A. No.6318 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellants, during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal.
4. During course of submission, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants does not press bail application of Appellant Nos.3
and 7 namely, Mahavir Paswan @ Mahabir Paswan and Vikash
Paswan @ Bikash Paswan respectively.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of Appellant Nos.3 and 7
namely, Mahavir Paswan @ Mahabir Paswan and Vikash
Paswan @ Bikash Paswan respectively, is permitted to be
dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.
6. However, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has
pressed prayer for bail of Appellant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 namely,
Jaleshwar Paswan, Sumitra Devi, Sunita Devi, Anuj Paswan
and Arvind Paswan @ Arbind Paswan.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5
and 6 namely, Jaleshwar Paswan, Sumitra Devi, Sunita Devi,
Anuj Paswan and Arvind Paswan @ Arbind Paswan submitted
that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in the
eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and
they have not committed any offence and general and omnibus
allegation has been levelled against all the appellants. It is
submitted that disputes arose between both the sides and both
the sides had sustained injuryies. It is submitted that Appellant
No.1-Jaleshwar Paswan had also instituted Gidhour P.S. Case
No.54 of 2014 under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 325,
307 and 504 of IPC against the informant-Uday Paswan and
nine other persons for the same dated of occurrence taking place
on 31.10.2014. It is submitted that Appellant No.1-Jaleshwar
Paswan is aged around 79 years and Appellant No.2-Sumitra
Devi is aged around 75 years on the date of passing of sentence.
It is submitted that the doctor (i.e. P.W-8) has found simple
injury on the persons of the injured namely, Uday Paswan,
Rajesh Paswan and Bajo Paswan. However, it is submitted that
one of the injured-Ajay Paswan, doctor has found serious injury
on his person. It is submitted that the defence of the appellants
has not been considered by the learned Trial Court below. It is
submitted that appellants have remained in custody for some
period during trial and thereafter they are in custody since
25.02.2025 and hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
8. On the other hand, learned APP has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail. It is submitted that all the appellants
including Appellant Nos.3 and 7 had brutally assaulted the
informant Uday Paswan and his family members due to which
three persons had sustained injuries. It is submitted that the
injured Ajay Paswan had sustained two serious injury on his
head whereas other injureds Uday Paswan, Rajesh Paswan and
Bajo Paswan had also sustained injury on their head, left leg and
head respectively, which is proved from the injury reports
marked as Ext-3, Ext-3/1 and Ext-3/2 and Ext-3/3 respectively.
It is submitted that P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W-6, P.W-9 and P.W-10
were the eye witnesses and they had supported the prosecution
case whereas the informant, who has been examined as P.W-1
fully supported the prosecution case regarding assault made by
the appellants. It is submitted that all the appellants have
brutally assaulted the informant and his family members. It is
submitted that P.W-8 is the Doctor who had proved the injury
report on the person of the injured persons whereas P.W-11-
Nand Kishore Singh is the I.O of this case and who had also
supported and corroborated the prosecution case. It is submitted
that the case instituted by the Appellant No.1-Jaleshwar Paswan
is merely counter blast to escape from his own liabilities and
hence the prayer for bail of the Appellant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
namely, Jaleshwar Paswan, Sumitra Devi, Sunita Devi, Anuj
Paswan and Arvind Paswan @ Arbind Paswan may be rejected.
9. Perused the Trial Court Records and considered the
submission of both the sides.
10. It appears that despite issuance of notice to the Informant
vide order dated 04.04.2025, the Informant has not appeared
though notice was served upon the wife of the informant but she
refused to put her signature. The service report of the Judge In-
charge reveals that service is valid.
11. From perusal of evidence of Doctor-P.W-8, it reveals that
Ashok Paswan had sustained two serious injury on his head
whereas the informant Uday Paswan-P.W-1, Rajesh Paswan-
P.W-2, Bajo Paswan-P.W-7 had sustained simple injuries on
their persons.
12. It appears that there is case and counter case between the
parties and the Appellant No.1-Jaleshwar Paswan had also
instituted Gidhour P.S. Case No.54 of 2014 as mentioned above
under section 307 and allied sections of the IPC against the
informant and nine other family members.
13. Exhibit-C is the certified copy of the FIR and Exhibit- E to
Exhibit-E/5 respectively are certified copy of depositions of
evidence of witnesses including Appellant No.1-Jageshwar
Paswan, Mahavir Paswan (Appellant No.3), Nand Kishore
Singh, Rajesh Bhuiyan and one Sudhir Singh.
14. Considering the custody of the Appellant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5
and 6 namely, Jaleshwar Paswan, Sumitra Devi, Sunita Devi,
Anuj Paswan and Arvind Paswan @ Arbind Paswan and also
considering the facts that the injury which had been attributed to
the appellants were simple injuries on the persons of the injured
persons, the Appellant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 namely, Jaleshwar
Paswan, Sumitra Devi, Sunita Devi, Anuj Paswan and Arvind
Paswan @ Arbind Paswan are directed to be released on bail, on
their furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand
only) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in
Sessions Trial No.07 of 2017, arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case
No.53 of 2014.
15. I.A. No.6318 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
