[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jambira Sundi @ Jamira Sundi @ Pension ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.949 of 2025
------
Jambira Sundi @ Jamira Sundi @ Pension Sundi, aged about 44
years, S/o Late Dhuruwa Sundi, Resident of Village-Sankosai, P.O.-
Chaibasa, P.S.-Chaibasa Muffasil, Dist.-West Singhbhum
(Jharkhand).
... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shakuntla Sundi W/o Late Soma Sundi, R/o-Vill-Saukosai, Tola-
Regabasa, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S.-Muffasil, Dist.-West Sighbhum
(Jharkhand).
... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
For the OP 2 : None
------
Order No:-05 Dated:-20-03-2026
Heard the parties.
Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party
no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of
repeated calls.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the Appellant on bail
during the pendency of this Appeal. It is next submitted that the appellant
has been convicted in connection with S.T. Case No.28 of 2024 arising out
of Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No.142 of 2023 for having committed the
offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. It is next submitted that
during the pendency of the case, the appellant was all along in custody
and on the date of judgment, also he was in custody. It is next submitted
that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and all the
prosecution witnesses have made improvements in their statements from
time to time, hence, the prayer as prayed for by the appellant in this
appeal, be allowed.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant made in this
appeal and submits that the appellant was never released on bail during
the trial of the case and in the judgment of conviction, the allegations
against the appellant was found to be true and the appellant has been
convicted, so at this stage, if he released on bail, there is every chance of
the appellant absconding in view of the sentence imposed upon him,
hence, the appellant ought not be admitted to bail.
Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that
the appellant was never released on bail during the trial of the case and
the allegations against the appellant which are of serious nature, was
found to be true by the trial court and the trial Court has already held the
appellant guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of seven
years and the appellant has not even undergone half of the sentence.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
considering the serious nature of the offence committed by the appellant
as well as the chance of the appellant absconding, if released on bail, this
is not a fit case where the appellant be admitted to bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant during the
pendency of this appeal is dismissed.
This Interlocutory Application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
List this appeal under the heading 'Hearing' before the appropriate
Bench.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
20/03/2026
Abhiraj/
