Ahmad Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5704 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ahmad Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ananda Sen, Ambuj Nath

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1194 of 2022
                           -----
           Ahmad Hussain, s/o late Abdul Ahad, R/o Rahmat Colony, new
           Chamniya Maidan, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
                                                         ... Appellant(s).
                                  Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                       ... Respondent(s).
                                  ------
           CORAM       :     SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. .........

10 /11.09.2025: I.A. No.8739 of 2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. The interlocutory application for suspension of sentence of this appellant was earlier dismissed as not pressed on 26.02.2024.

3. The appellant has been convicted in connection with Session Trial Case No. 175 of 2018, for offence under Sections 302/34 and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

5. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 and 304-B/34 of IPC. The appellant is father-in-law of the deceased.

7. Admittedly, the deceased died within seven years of marriage and the death is otherwise than in a normal circumstance. There is consistent evidence of torture upon the deceased. There was demand of dowry also.

8. Surprising is the post-mortem report where there are two ligature marks, one is post-mortem and another is anti-mortem which also fortifies the case of the prosecution that the deceased was done to death. Admittedly, the deceased died in the in-law's house.

9. Considering this plea, we are not inclined to allow this interlocutory application and, thus, this interlocutory application is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(AMBUJ NATH, J.)

Tanuj/sandeep