Jharkhand High Court
Arvind Kumar S/O Tripurari Prasad Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 395 of 2025
....
Arvind Kumar S/o Tripurari Prasad Verma, Age- about 55 years
Resident of Village- Sagdaha, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, Dist.-Deoghar
......Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Muneshwar Das, S/o Sri Budhan Das, Resident of Village
Shankar, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, Dist- Deoghar ......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. L. C. Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP
......
rd
Order No.07/23 September 2025
I.A. No.4220 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated
20.03.2025 and sentence dated 25.03.2025 passed by Shri
Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III Deoghar
in Sessions Trial No.93/2015 arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No.
81/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 454/2011 by which the
appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections
323/34, 341/34, 504/34 and 326/34 of the IPC and under Section
27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six (06)
months for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC, R.I. for
one (01) month for the offence under Section 341/34 of the IPC,
R.I. for one (01) year for the offence under Section 504/34 of the
IPC and R.I. for five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for
the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC and R.I. for five (05)
years and to pay the fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. I.A. No. 4220 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP.
4. It appears that vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this
Court, notice was issued upon the Informant-respondent no. 2.
However, none appeared on behalf of the Informant-respondent
no. 2 on 14.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 and even today i.e. on
23.09.2025.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that
the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is
submitted that the appellant is alleged to have fired upon the
informant-Muneshwar Das on the instruction of his father.
However, the bullet caused injury to one another person Haldar
Das. It is submitted that the Doctor had been examined as PW-10
in this case and who found simple injury on the person of the
injured Haldar Das caused by the fire-arms, which is evident from
the Supplementary Injury Report marked as Exhibit-9/1. It is
further submitted that the trial of the other co-accused was
separated and co-accused namely Tripurari Prasad Verma had
already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
23.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 312 of 2025. It is
submitted that the incident took place due to the certain
provocation and it was not the intention of the appellant to cause
injury to anyone. It is submitted that the appellant is an Advocate
and practicing in Civil Court, Deoghar. It is submitted that injury
was not on the vital part of the body. It is submitted that the
appellant was in custody for one and half month during the trial
and after conviction, he is in custody since 25.03.2025 i.e. for
around six (06) months and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of
bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the
appellant for causing fire-arms injury on the right leg of the
injured Haldar Das. It is submitted that the injured-Haldar Das
examined as P.W-1 and who has fully supported the case and
stated that the bullet fired by the appellant caused injury to him
instead of Informant. It is submitted that PW-6, Muneshwar Das is
the informant of this case and who also supported the case and
also injury sustained by the injured P.W-1 Haldhar Das. It is
submitted that the Doctor has been examined as P.W-10 in this
case and who had found fire-arm injury on the person of the
injured. However, it is fairly admitted that the injury was found to
be simple in nature. It is submitted that releasing of the appellant
on bail would create problem to the Informant as he will destroy
the victim and hence, the prayer of bail of the appellant may be
rejected.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
through the F.I.R, it appears that the due to the sudden altercation
between one Tripurari Prasad Verma i.e. the father of the appellant
and the Informant- Muneshwar Das for the reason of committing
theft of chewing stick of Guava Tree from the house of the
co-convict, Tripurari Prasad Verma and co-convict Tripurari
Prasad Verma had instigated the appellant to fire upon the
Informant and the appellant had fired upon him by his gun but the
bullet caused injury to one another person Haldar Das on his right
leg.
8. It appears that the gun was seized by the police and then
the appellant and accused persons were arrested.
9. It appears that PW-10 i.e. Dr. Rajiv Kumar Pandey had
found following injuries on the person of Haldar Das, as follows:-
(i). Mark of identification: a til interior chest
(ii). Injuries: laceration of left right shin 4"x3" bone deep with
red in colour, serum using outside the wound, margin is charred
weapon used- Fire arm
Opinion reserved due to lack of X-ray.
10. It reveals from the supplementary injury report marked as
Exhibit-9/1 that the injury was found simple in nature in the right
leg.
11. It further reveals that there is a case and counter case
between the parties and even the appellant had sustained injuries as
it appears form the Exhibit-B that the appellant had also sustained
injury on his forehead scalp and left hand and right hand and even
Tripurari Prasad Verma i.e. the father of the appellant was also
assaulted and had sustained injuries on his person.
12. It appears that the dispute arose suddenly due to certain
provocation. The informant was trying to unplug the chewing stick
from Guava tree after scaling the boundary of the co-convict
Tripurari Prasad Verma.
13. Considering the fact that the appellant is a lawyer also and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also
considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely
Arvind Kumar is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each, to the satisfaction learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-III Deoghar or his Successor Court in connection with
Sessions Trial No.93/2015 arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No.
81/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 454/2011 subject to the
condition that the appellant shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
thousand) to the Injured namely Haldhar Das towards the victim
compensation at the time of furnishing the bail bonds and which
may be disbursed to the injured Haldhar Das by the learned Court
through the DLSA and PLV Deoghar.
14. Thus, I.A. No. 4220 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated 23.09.2025
Kamlesh/-
