Jharkhand High Court
Sona Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 253 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 2358 of 2025
----------
Sona Yadav ..... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Dinesh Yadav ..... Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 153 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 2105 of 2025
----------
Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar ..... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Dinesh Yadav ..... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
(In both the cases)
----------
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
07/23.09.2025 These Criminal Appeals have been filed on
behalf of the Appellants challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 22.01.2025 and sentence dated
25.01.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Koderma in Sessions Trial No.141 of 2022, arising out of
Chandwara P.S. Case No. 103 of 2021, by which the
Appellants, namely Sona Yadav (Cr.Appl No.253 of 2025)
and Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar (Cr.Appl.No.153 of
2025) have been convicted for the offences under Sections
341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 307/34 and 448/34 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Five years and to pay
the fine of Rs.5,000/-, R.I. for Three years and to pay the
fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for One year and to pay the fine of
Rs.500/-, R.I. for One year and to pay the fine of Rs.500/-
and R.I. for One month and to pay the fine of Rs.500/-
each for the offence under Sections 307/34, 324/34,
323/34, 448/34 and 341/34 I.P.C. respectively.
2. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that on
27.09.2021, at about 7.30 P.M. the appellants, namely
Sona Yadav and Manoj Yadav and others, namely Ashish
Yadav and Rina Devi, armed with deadly weapons,
attacked the Informant and his staff in the Hotel of the
Informant and damaged their utensils, chairs and tables.
It is alleged that the appellants assaulted the Informant
by knife and Dunda due to which the Informant sustained
injury on his ear. Even Ashish Yadav and Rina Devi had
assaulted Mahesh Yadav by Lathi, Dunda due to which he
suffered swelling in hand. It is alleged that appellant Sona
Yadav had taken Rs.39,000/- from the cash counter. It is
alleged that appellant Sona Yadav used to extort money
from the Informant and non-fulfillment of extortion
demands is the reason behind this attack.
I.A. No. 2358 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 253 of 2025
3. The instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the appellant, namely Sona Yadav
under Section 430(1) of B.N.S.S., 2023 for ad-interim bail
during pendency of the Criminal Appeal.
I.A. No. 2105 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 153 of 2025
4. The instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the appellant, namely Manoj Yadav
@ Manoj Kumar under Section 430(1) of B.N.S.S. for ad-
interim bail during pendency of the Criminal Appeal.
5. Since the present appeals arise from a
common judgment, the Interlocutory Applications filed in
both the appeals, are, hereby, heard together and
disposed of together.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
Informant.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and
not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the allegations
against the appellants are false and concocted. It is
submitted that so far as injury alleged to have been
caused to the injured Mahesh Yadav by the other persons,
namely Ashish Yadav and Rina Devi are concerned, said
Ashish Yadav and Rina Devi have not been sent up for
trial. It is submitted that the appellants are alleged to
have assaulted the informant Dinesh Yadav by knife,
Lathi and Dunda. It is submitted that the injury no.1 was
found to be grievous in nature in the ear, but injury no.2
was found to be simple in nature. It is submitted that
there is a case and counter case between the parties and
the I.O. has admitted during his cross-examination at
Para 14 of his deposition that appellant Sona Yadav had
instituted Chandwara P.S. Case No. 104 of 2021 on the
same day, whereas the Informant had instituted
Chandwara P. S. Case No. 103 of 2021. It is submitted
that the appellants had got marked the said F.I.R. of
Chandwara P.S. Case No.104 of 2021 as Exhibit D -1
and during trial this fact was also admitted by the
I.O. of this case during his evidence. It is submitted that
the appellants, namely Sona Yadav and Manoj Yadav @
Manoj Kumar are in custody since 22.01.2025, however,
the appellant Manoj Yadav was in custody during trial
also for Two months and the appellant Sona Yadav was
granted Anticipatory Bail by the High Court in A.B.A.No.
1046 of 2022, hence the appellants may be enlarged on
bail.
8. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has
opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the P.W.5,
namely Dinesh Yadav i.e. the Informant of this case has
fully supported his case of sustaining injury due to the
assault made by the appellants. It is submitted that the
P.W.7, namely Dr. Praveen Kumar, who had examined the
injured persons, has stated that the injuries on the
person of both Mahesh Yadav and the Informant are
grievous in nature, hence prayer for bail may be rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the Informant, after
adopting the submissions of the learned A.P.P., has
further submitted that the appellants had brutally
assaulted the informant by knife, Lathi and Dunda due to
which the Informant had sustained grievous injury in the
right ear and several injuries on other parts of his body,
whereas one Mahesh Yadav had also sustained grievous
injuries. It is submitted that the appellant side were
aggressors and the occurrence took place at the Hotel of
the Informant. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2,
namely Bhuneshwar Sao and Deva Gope had fully
supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that
P.W.4, namely Md. Roshan and P.W.5, namely Dinesh
Yadav, i.e. Informant of the case, have also supported the
assault made upon Informant by the appellants. It is
submitted that the appellants had damaged the entire
chairs and utensils of the hotel of the Informant causing
him a loss of Rs.15,000/-. It is submitted that the I.O.
has also supported and corroborated the prosecution
case, hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.
10. Heard learned counsel for both sides and
perused the Lower Court Records.
11. It appears that although four persons, i.e
the appellants, namely Sona Yadav and Manoj Yadav
along with two other persons, namely Ashish Yadav and
Rina Devi are named in the F.I.R. but during the
investigation the Police had not sent up Ahsish Yadav and
Rina Devi for trial and final form was submitted in their
favour.
12. It reveals that P.W.2, namely Deva Gope
is the father of the informant and he is a hearsay witness
and P.W. 3, namely Darshan Sharma and P.W.6, namely
Raju Das had been declared hostile by the prosecution.
The P.W.1, namely Bhuneshwar Sao has stated that three
accused persons, namely Sona Yadav, Manoj Yadav and
Ashish Yadav had assaulted the Informant, however,
during cross-examination he has admitted that he had
seen both the parties quarrelling with each other.
13. It appears that the trial court has
recorded the name of injured person as Vinay Yadav and
Ashok Yadav, though the Informant was Dinesh Yadav
instead of Vinay Yadav and other injured was Mahesh
Yadav instead of Ashok Yadav.
The trial Court will remain cautious while
recording evidence in future.
14. So far as evidence of PW. 5, namely
Dinesh Yadav, i.e. the Informant is concerned, it reveals
that the appellant Sona Yadav had assaulted him by knife
causing injury on his right ear and due to assault made
by both the appellants he became unconscious.
However, he has not supported the factum
of demand of Rangdari during his examination-in-chief,
though he claimed in the F.I.R. that the appellants have
demanded Rangdari from him and when he was further
cross-examined on behalf of the defence after four month,
then he stated about the demand of Rangdari, but has not
named any person.
He claimed to have been running the hotel
of Mahesh Yadav.
However, during cross-examination, P.W.5,
i.e. the Informant had denied the suggestion of counter
case.
However, so far as the evidence of P.W.8,
namely Rohan Paswan, i.e. the I.O., is concerned, he has
supported the prosecution case on the point of assault
and had submitted chargesheet against both the
appellants. However, during cross-examination he has
admitted in Para No. 14 and 16 of his evidence that there
was case and counter case between both the sides and
both the sides have sustained injuries and the appellant
Sona Yadav had instituted Chandwara P.S. Case No. 104
of 2021 against Informant-Dinesh Yadav.
He further stated that appellants and the
informant Dinesh Yadav are Sala and Bahnoi in relation.
He also admitted that he was also the I.O.
of the said counter case and had sent the injured person
of both the sides for treatment to Sadar Hospital,
Koderma.
15. It transpires that P.W.7 is the Doctor, who
had examined Mahesh Yadav and has found Three
injuries on his person, however, as per the F.I.R. the said
injuries were attributed to other persons, namely Ashish
Yadav and Rina Devi, who were not sent up for trial by the
Police.
16. The Doctor found following injuries on the
person of the Informant:-
"i. Lacerated wound with small edges on right ear
3cm X 1/4 cm X Cartilage deep
ii. Hematoma left elbow joint and adjacent
humerus 6 cm X 1 cm X bone deep (Hematoma)
iii. Hematoma left lower thigh 5 cm X 1 cm muscle
to bone deep (Laterally)
iv. Abrasions & small hematoma left foot
v. Abrasion-Right foot
vi. Nature of injury no.1 is grievous in nature (Most
probably cause by sharp cutting weapon & injury
no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are simple injury,
vii Advice-CT brain, X-ray left femur (APL/LAT), X-
Ray right elbow joint (APL/LAT, X-ray left elbow
joint (APL/LAT) with adjacent forearm, Hemoglobin
percent, Blood grouping and X-ray typing."
The Doctor has opined that the injury on the
right ear of the Informant is grievous in nature while other
injuries are simple in nature.
17. It appears that the Informant and the
appellants are relatives and the dispute has arose regarding
running of hotel by the Informant, whereas the appellants
were also running their own hotel.
18. Considering the fact that there is only a cut
injury on the right ear of the Informant and custody of the
appellants, namely Sona Yadav and Manoj Yadav @ Manoj
Kumar, the sentence of the appellants is suspended during
pendency of these appeals and the appellants, namely Sona
Yadav and Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar is directed to be
released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each in connection with Sessions Trial No.141 of
2022, arising out of Chandwara P.S. Case No. 103 of 2021,
to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma.
19. Thus, I.A. No. 2358 of 2025 and I.A. No.
2105 of 2025 are allowed and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
