[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.617 of 2024
With
I.A. No.12315 of 2025
------
1. Vikash Kumar Mahto, aged about 28 years Son of Bhuvan Mahto,
Resident of village-Chitami, Tola Bhandardih, Pindrajora, P.O. &
P.S. Pindrajora District Bokaro.
2. Bhuwan Mahto, aged about 65 years Son of Mahanand Mahto,
Resident of village- Chitami, Tola Bhandardih, Pindrajora, P.O. &
P.S. Pindrajora District Bokaro. .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For Appellant No.2 : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------
14/Dated: 24.02.2026
Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
the appellant no.2, namely, Bhuwan Mahto, for suspension of
sentence dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-IV-cum-Special Judge (Crime against women), Bokaro, in
connection with Sessions Trial No.299 of 2023, arising out of
Pindrajora P.S. Case No.77 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No.813
of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been
convicted for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years for the offence under Section
304B/34 of the IPC.
2. Earlier, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellants
was dismissed, vide order dated 29th October, 2024 passed in I.A.
No.4821 of 2024, and this time the aforesaid instant interlocutory
application has been preferred by the appellant no.2 on the ground
of his health condition and old age.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
since on earlier occasion, he had already contested the case on
merit and this Court after due consideration of all factual aspects,
has rejected the prayer for suspension of sentence, vide order dated
29th October, 2024 passed in I.A. No.4821 of 2024.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further
submitted that the appellant no.2/applicant is having the age of more
than 70 years and as per the medical report dated 16.11.2025
prepared by the Medical Officer deputed in District Jail, Chas
Bokaro, now the appellant is not in a condition to do any work.
Further, his health and medical conditions are deteriorating day by
day and he has difficulty in doing daily routine works. The said
medical report has been appended with the instant interlocutory
application by way of filing the supplementary affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant no.2, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the instant application may be
allowed.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent-State
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence and contended that earlier, the
prayer for suspension of sentence of the present appellant has been
rejected by this Court, after due consideration of the entire aspect of
the case on merit and since, no new ground or fact or law is
available, therefore, the prayer for suspension of sentence is not fit
to be allowed.
7. However, the learned P.P. has not disputed the aforesaid fact
about the age of the appellant no.2 of having the age of more than
70 years and his medical and health condition which is deteriorating
day by day.
Analysis
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considered the rival submissions.
9. It is evident from record that the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the present appellant has been rejected earlier by this
Court on merit and the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
present appellant has been renewed by taking the ground of
appellant's health condition and his old age based upon the report of
the medical report dated 16.11.2025 prepared by the Medical Officer
deputed in District Jail, Chas, Bokaro.
10. It is evident from order dated 30.01.2026 that the objection in
reference to the medical report and the instant interlocutory
application, has been filed by the respondent-State, wherein, it has
been stated that the age of the appellant no.2, namely, Bhuwan
Mahto has been assessed as 65 years.
11. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that there is
no reference in the medical report dated 06.01.2026 duly been
signed by the Medical Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro that as to
on what basis, the age of the appellant no.2, namely Bhuwan Mahto
has been assessed to be about 75 years, while, the Officer In-charge
of the Pindrajora Police Station has referred the age of the appellant
no.2, namely, Bhuwan Mahto as 65 years has sought an affidavit
from Dr. Ravi Shekhar, Medical Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro
showing the basis of determination of age of appellant no.2. For
ready reference, the order dated 30.01.2026 is being quoted as
under:
"11/Dated: 30.01.2026
1. Objection has been filed to the interlocutory application being
I.A. No.12315 of 2025.
2. The said objection contains a medical report dated
06.01.2026 duly been signed by Dr. Ravi Shekhar, Medical
Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro, wherein, the age of the
appellant no.2 has been shown to be 75 years.
3. In Annexure-C, the Officer In-charge of the Pindrajora Police
Station has referred the age of the appellant no.2, namely,
Bhuwan Mahto as 65 years.
4. This Court wants to satisfy regarding the exact age of the
appellant no.2, namely, Bhuwan Mahto.
5. There is no reference in the medical report dated 06.01.2026
duly been signed by Dr. Ravi Shekhar, Medical Officer, District
Jail, Chas, Bokaro that as to on what basis, the age of the
appellant no.2, namely Bhuwan Mahto has been assessed to
be about 75 years, while, the Officer In-charge of the Pindrajora
Police Station has referred the age of the appellant no.2,
namely, Bhuwan Mahto as 65 years.
6. This Court, therefore, is of the view that an affidavit is
required to be called upon from Dr. Ravi Shekhar, Medical
Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro showing the basis of
determination of age of appellant no.2, namely, Bhuwan Mahto.
7. Let such affidavit be filed personally by the Dr. Ravi Shekhar,
Medical Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro, within a week.
8. Accordingly, let this matter be listed on 09.02.2026."
12. Thereafter, on 09.02.2026, the instant matter was heard and in
compliance of order dated 30.01.2026, an affidavit has been filed by
the Medical Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro, but this Court while
taking into consideration casual approach and the stand which has
been taken by the said Medical Officer, as stated in Para-7 of the
affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that after looking to the physic
of the person and based upon the information furnished by the family
members, the doctors are used to refer the age in the
prescription/report , has called the said Medical Officer in person and
explain the things for the purpose of passing further necessary order,
for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order is
being quoted, which reads as under:
"6. In a situation, when a Court has called upon the doctor
to exercise his duty, for the purpose of verifying the fact
that the ground which has been taken in the interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence, is genuine one or
not, the doctor, being a medical expert, is supposed to
submit a report by following all parameters, but here, the
concerned doctor has randomly referred the age of the
applicant as 75 years since there is no basis for the same.
7. We are not concerned regarding the issue of making
reference of the age in the prescription/report, rather we
are only concerned as to what is the duty of the public
servant, like the doctor in the present case, in a situation
where the court has called upon a report.
8. The doctor is supposed to follow all parameters before
assessing the age of the concerned, since the same will
be taken as a basis for passing of an order, which cannot
be on the basis of a casual approach of a doctor, which
has been taken in the present case.
9. The concerned doctor, therefore, has committed prima
facie dereliction in discharge of official duty and not only
that, he has also 4 stated that subsequently, the Medical
Board was constituted and the age of the said Bhuwan
Mahto was assessed to be in between 70 to 75 years. The
question is that what was the necessity of constituting the
Medical Board subsequent to the report submitted by the
concerned doctor and why the endeavor was not taken
immediately after receipt of the order passed by this Court.
10. Let the Dr. Ravi Shekhar appear in person and explain
the things for the purpose of passing further necessary
order.
11. Let the order be communicated to Dr. Ravi Shekhar,
Medical Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro forthwith.
12. List this case on 16th February, 2026."
13. Thereafter, matter was taken up on 16.02.2026, wherein, the
concerned Medical Officer had appeared and submitted that he has
assessed the age of the applicant/appellant at the time of Medical
Screening as 73 years and as per the Medical Board, the age of the
applicant has been assessed in between 70-75 years and in support
of his submission, he has placed a photocopy of Medical report
dated 04.02.2026, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of
the order dated 16.02.2026 is being quoted herein which reads as
under:
"2. He has stated that he has not received any
communication from the learned A.P.P. and whatever
instruction has been sought for on the issue of age of the
applicant, he, on the basis of reference of age made in the
register, has referred the same. However, he has
assessed the age of the applicant at the time of Medical
Screening as 73 years and as per the Medical Board, the
age of the applicant has been assessed in between 70-75
years."
14. Thus, from the aforesaid, it evident that as per the report of the
Medical Board the age of present appellant no.2 seems to be in 70 to
75 years and further, as per the report dated 16.11.2025 of Medical
Officer, District Jail, Chas, Bokaro, the appellant no.2/applicant is not
in a condition to do any work. Further, his health and medical
conditions are not good and he has difficulty in doing daily routine
works.
15. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bherulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3319 while considering the plea of a 70-year-old ailing man for the
suspension of the sentence and allowing the same has said that the
plea for a suspension of sentence should be considered liberally in
cases of fixed term sentences, unless an exceptional circumstance
arises. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
the High Court should have realized that the petitioner is seventy
years of age the petitioner is virtually blind and there is nothing on
record to indicate that his release on bail pending appeal would
thwart the course of justice.
16. In the instant case also, as per the report of the Medical Board
the appellantno.2/ applicant is in between the age of 70 to 75 years
and further, as per the report of Medical Officer District Jai, Chas
Bokaro dated 16.11.2025 that health and medical conditions of the
appellant no.2 are not good and he is difficulty in doing daily routine
works and suffering from many age-related diseases.
17. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that
the instant interlocutory application is fit to be allowed.
18. Accordingly, I.A.No.12315 of 2025 stands allowed.
19. In consequence thereof, the appellant no.2, namely, Bhuwan
Mahto, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-IV-cum-Special Judge (Crime against women), Bokaro, in
connection with Sessions Trial No.299 of 2023, arising out of
Pindrajora P.S. Case No.77 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No.813
of 2023.
20. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
24.02.2026
Rohit/-
