Pratap Ghosh @ Kalu Ghosh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5728 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pratap Ghosh @ Kalu Ghosh 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 (DB) No. 433 of 2024
       Pratap Ghosh @ Kalu Ghosh, aged about 47 years, son of Late Tapas Ghosh,
       resident of Village- Chaipara, P.O. & P.S.- Vaishnavnagar, District- Malda,
       West Bengal.                                        .... Appellant
                                        Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                              .... Respondent
                                 ------
              CORAM :         SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

-----

I.A. No. 9722 of 2025 6/ 11.09.2025 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. Prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected on 11.06.2024. This is second attempt to renew his prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 489B, 489C and 420 of the Indian Peanl Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code along with other sentences 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. The appellant was apprehended with counterfeit currency notes of rupees three lakhs.

6. We find no fresh ground to entertain this application, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Thus, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected again.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) R.Kr./Rahul