[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rustam Ansari @ Md. Rustam Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 962 of 2024
----
Rustam Ansari @ Md. Rustam Ansari
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Suman Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vasistha, Spl. P.P.
--------
th
Order No. 12 : Dated 19 February, 2026
I.A. No. 435 of 2026
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of sole appellant for suspension of sentence dated
27.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Giridih in S.T. Case No. 363 of 2021 arising out of Tisri P.S.
Case No. 03 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been found guilty and convicted to undergo R.I. for 10 years
with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC
and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been
directed undergo SI for one year.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
although earlier the appellant had filed I.A. No. 7050 of 2024,
which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29th
November, 2024 but again the prayer is being renewed on the
ground of custody of more than four years out of the maximum
punishment of 10 years coupled with the ground on merit.
3. It has been submitted that the charge was framed under
Section 304 B IPC but no ingredient has been found of the
offence which attracts the offence under Section 304B IPC, but
the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under
Section 306 IPC. It has been submitted that serious prejudice
has been caused since no opportunity has been given to the
appellant to defend himself showing innocence that the
appellant was not in any way involved in abetment of
committing suicide.
4. Submission has been made that however the learned trial
court has come out with the reasoning, as would be evident
from the impugned judgment that no prejudice has been
caused if the charge has not been framed under Section 306
IPC since the question to that effect has been put in the
examination of the witnesses and even in the statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Further submission has been made that the petitioner
since has already remained in custody for about four years
against the maximum punishment of 10 years and the appeal is
of the year 2024, and by the time the appeal will be taken up
the appellant would have completed the entire sentence., which
will be highly prejudicial to the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that the appellant may be
released on bail by suspending the sentence during pendency of
the instant appeal.
7. While on the other hand, learned Mr. Vineet Kumar
Vasistha, learned Spl, P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It
has been submitted that the learned trial court has taken into
consideration the issue of prejudice, as would be evident from
the finding so recorded in the impugned judgment. He has tried
to demonstrate by defending the paragraph 21 of the impugned
judgment by referring the statement made by P.W. 8, wherein
the question to the effect of abetment of suicide, as per the
ingredient as available under Section 306 IPC has already been
put to the appellant, hence, it is not the question to create
prejudice to the appellant.
8. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground
has submitted that it is not a fit case to release the appellant by
suspending the sentence.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the other material available in the
trial court record.
10. The fact about framing of charge, based upon the material
collected in course of investigation, under Section 304B IPC is
not in dispute. The prosecution has proceeded to establish the
charge under Section 304 B IPC but the learned trial court has
not found ingredient of Section 304B IPC as per the reasoning
assigned in the impugned judgment. However, the learned trial
court has convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC. The
question of prejudice has been raised.
11. This Court has not gone into the issue of prejudice at this
stage rather thought it proper to go into the issue of period of
sentence undergone, since as has been submitted and admitted
by learned Spl. P.P. that the appellant has undergone about 4
years of custody out of maximum punishment of 10 years.
Further, the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no
likelihood of taking up of the appeal in near future. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that it is case where the appellant has
made out a case for suspension of sentence.
12. Therefore, this Court is of the view, the sentence is to be
suspended, during pendency of the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is
allowed.
14. In view thereof, the appellant named above, is directed to
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Giridih in S.T. Case No. 363 of 2021 arising out of
Tisri P.S. Case No. 03 of 2013.
15. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove
will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the
appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/-
19th February, 2026
