Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Prasad @ Chunnu 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. 409 of 2023
-----
Dharmendra Prasad @ Chunnu, son of late Ramashish, resident of
village Derhgaon, PS Kwat, PS Kwat, District Rohtas (Bihar) presently
residing at New Lay Out Sitaramdera, Quarter No. 248, PS
Sitaramdera, PO Sitaramdera, District East Singhbhum
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
.........
06 /11.09.2025: I.A. No.9401 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 24.02.2024.
3. The appellant has been convicted in connection with
Sessions Trial Case No. 183 of 2007 arising out of Gua PS Case
No. 83 of 2006 corresponding to G.R No. 698 of 2006, for offence
under Sections 364A, 419 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 364A of
IPC and other punishment for other offences.
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. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
serious contradiction in the evidence of the victim, his father and
also the I.O. His case is that if the evidence of the I.O. is read
with evidence of father and the victim it will clearly suggest that
the victim has staged his kidnapping. Just because one of the
accused was working in a crusher which is adjacent to the
crusher of this victim and informant, they have been made an
accused in this case. He lastly submits that the investigation is
perfunctory and there is no evidence of payment of ransom. He
also submits that how the police had come to know about the
place where the victim was kept along with its quarter number
and also how the police came to know that the victim is
returning by a particular train is not clear. This suggest that the
story of kidnapping is false. He submits that nowhere the victim
has stated about the vehicle number and the colour of the vehicle
differs from the evidence of each of the witnesses. He lastly
submits that one of the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Singh
has been enlarged on bail after suspension of sentence and
another accused has been granted bail, but on medical grounds.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer and submits that the
vehicle which was used in the kidnapping was registered in the
name of mother of this appellant and the vehicle was recovered
from his house. He further submits that the victim has identified
this appellant not only in Court but also during the Test
Identification Parade.
7. After hearing the parties, I find that all the points which
the appellant has taken needs consideration only at the time of
hearing. Prima facie, we find that the victim has identified this
appellant to be the kidnapper. Further the vehicle used in the
kidnapping was recovered from the house of this appellant.
8. So far as bail granted to the Dharmendra Kumar Singh is
concerned, we find that there is categorical plea of alibi taken by
the Dharmendra Kumar Singh as he was in hospital during the
aforesaid period. The defense witnesses were also examined and
hence proved the document, which suggest that he was in
Tinplate hospital as well as in TMH Hospital. Thus, the bail
order of Dharmendra Kumar Singh will not come to help this
appellant.
9. In view of what has been held above, we are not inclined to
allow this interlocutory application and, thus, this interlocutory
application is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(AMBUJ NATH, J.)
Tanuj/sandeep
