Jharkhand High Court
Medini Yadav @ Madani Yadav 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. 280 of 2025
....
Medini Yadav @ Madani Yadav ......Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Narayan Rajak ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate
: Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P
......
Order No: 07/Dated: 08.09.2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated
21.02.2025 and sentence dated 27.02.2025 passed by Mrs. Garima
Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in
connection with S.T Case No. 99 of 2007 (A) arising out of
Sector-IV P.S Case No. 56 of 2000 corresponding to G.R Case
No. 683 of 2000 by which the appellant has been convicted for
the offences under Sections 148, 307/149, 325/149 of the I.P.C
and sentenced to undergo R.I for two (02) years and to pay the
fine of Rs. 2000/-, R.I for five (05) years and to pay the fine of
Rs. 5,000/-, R.I for three (03) years and to pay the fine of Rs.
3000/- respectively.
2. I.A No. 6611 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during
pendency of this Criminal Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It
is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against
all the accused persons including the appellant for assaulting the
informant and the other injured persons. It is submitted that the
other co-convicts namely Raghuvir Yadav, Maksudan Yadav @
Masudan Yadav, Mahesh Yadav have been granted bail by the
Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary)
of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018 in Criminal Appeal
(S.J) No. 1533 of 2018 and one another co-convict namely
Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Yadav has been granted bail by the
Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Pramath Patnaik, as then his Lordhip
was) of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2019 in Criminal
Appeal (S.J) No. 1514 of 2018. It is submitted that the appellant
is in custody since 27.02.2025 and had earlier remained in
custody for some period also and hence, the appellant may be
enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant and
other co-convicts had assaulted the informant Narayan Ranak and
two other injureds namely Sadhu Mahto and Naru Mahto. It is
submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the
informant have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted
that P.W-4 Sadhu Mahto had sustained grievous injury and the
informant i.e. P.W-12 had also sustained grievous injury on his
person. It is submitted that P.W-9 i.e. the Doctor has supported the
injury sustained by the injured namely Naru Mahato, Sadhu
Mahato and the informant Narayan Rajak while being examined
as P.W-12. It is submitted that the appellant had even absconded
for a long period and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant
may be rejected.
5. Perused the Trial Court Records and also the order passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench on 17.12.2018 and 10.01.2019 in
Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 1533 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal
(S.J) No. 1514 of 2018 and considered the submissions of both
the sides.
6. It appears that from the records that after examination of
prosecution witnesses, the petitioner has absconded and his trial
was separated vide order dated 30.01.2009.
7. It further reveals from the Trial Court Records that the
appellant was declared absconder vide order dated 28.03.2017
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV.
8. It transpires that the appellant was apprehended on
04.04.2024 as it reveals from the order sheet of the Trial Court
dated 12.04.2024.
9. It also reveals that the Trial Court has shown much lenient
view by allowing the appellant on bail on 12.04.2024 for remain
absconded for more than 15-16 years.
10. From perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it
appears that P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-5 to P.W-10 have
alleged general and omnibus allegation against the accused
persons including the appellant whereas, P.W-4 Sadhu Mahato
had specifically stated against the co-convict Mahesh Yadav for
assaulting on his head.
11. P.W-4 is Sadhu Mahato who also stated that he was
assaulted by the accused and [co-convicts in Criminal Appeal
(S.J) No. 1533 of 2018] namely Raghuvir Yadav, Maksudan
Yadav @ Masudan Yadav, Mahesh Yadav and Mithilesh Yadav @
Mithlesh Yadav including the appellant.
12. From perusal of evidence of P.W-9 i.e. the Doctor, it
reveals that the injury sustained by P.W-4 Sadhu Mahato was
grievous in nature whereas, the informant had also sustained
grievous injury on his left 1/3 lower end of Ulna.
13. It appears that the co-convicts namely Raghuvir Yadav,
Maksudan Yadav @ Masudan Yadav, Mahesh Yadav have been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil
Kumar Choudhary) of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018 in
Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 1533 of 2018 and one another co-
convict namely Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Yadav has been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Pramath Patnaik,
as then his Lordhip was) of this Court vide order dated
10.01.2019 in Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 1514 of 2018.
14. Considering the custody of the appellant and also
considering that the other convicts of this case namely Raghuvir
Yadav, Maksudan Yadav @ Masudan Yadav, Mahesh Yadav and
Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Yadav have already been granted
bail, the appellant namely Medini Yadav @ Madani Yadav is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
20,000/- with two sureities of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Mrs. Garima Mishra, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Bokaro/or her successor Court in connection with S.T
Case No. 99 of 2007 (A) arising out of Sector-IV P.S Case No. 56
of 2000 corresponding to G.R Case No. 683 of 2000 subject to the
condition that one of the bailors must be the own relative of the
appellant and also subject to the condition that the appellant will
deposit Rs. 5,000/- before the Jharkhand High Court Advocate
Clerk Association within fifteen (15) days at the time of
furnishing of his bail bonds.
15. Thus, I.A No. 6611 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
