Sikkim High Court
Ranjit Ghimirey vs State Of Sikkim on 26 April, 2024
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
DATED : 26th April, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in Crl.A. No.10 of 2024
Appellant : Ranjit Ghimirey
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 read with Section 482 of the same Code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. R. C. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.
Appellant present in person.
Mr. Shakil Raj Karki, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2024 which is an application
for bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short "Code") read with Section 482 of the same Code,
seeking suspension of sentence imposed on the Appellant/convict.
2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellant
that the Appellant was convicted by the Court of the Learned
Special Judge (PC Act, 1988), at Gangtok, in ST (Vig) Case No.02
of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420
read with Section 34 and 120B(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
vide the impugned Judgment dated 21-02-2024 and Order on
Sentence of the same date.
3. Appeal assailing the Judgment has been filed before
this Court. That, vide the Order on Sentence the Appellant was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three
Ranjit Ghimirey vs. State of Sikkim
years under each of the Sections that he was convicted for, along
with direction to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)
only, each, under each of the Sections. A default clause of
imprisonment on non-payment of fine was also imposed. That,
the Learned Trial Court had granted bail to the convict/Appellant
duly suspending his sentence for the period of two months from
21-02-2024. The bail granted by the Learned Trial Court expired
on 20-04-2024. That, the convict is a responsible citizen, a
Sikkimese with his home and hearth in Sikkim. He has no reason
to abscond. That, throughout the trial from 2019 up to 21-02-
2024 the Appellant has not violated the terms and conditions of
the bail granted to him. That, the Appellant is 51 years of age
with various ailments, he has a school going son and wife, who
are dependent on him. That, his detention in prison would
prejudice his family and hence, the convict be granted bail and his
sentence suspended pending the hearing on appeal.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor objects to the
petition for bail and suspension on sentence on grounds that after
considering the fact of conviction there is likelihood that he could
abscond and hence, the Petition be rejected.
5. I have given due consideration to the submissions put
forth before me and perused the records as also the impugned
Judgment and the Order of Bail under Section 389(3) of the Code
of the Learned Trial Court.
6. From the records placed before me, it is evident that
the Learned Trial Court while exercising its powers under Section
389(3) of the Code granted bail to the convict and suspended his
sentence for two months from the date of conviction, i.e., 21-02-
Ranjit Ghimirey vs. State of Sikkim
2024. Thereafter, the appeal has been filed before this Court on
16-04-2024 before the period of limitation for filing the appeal
expired. However, on defects being notified by the Registry, the
matter was re-submitted on 24-04-2024 after rectification of
defects. The matter has been listed today. It is thus evident that
from 20-04-2024 till today the Appellant despite the clear order of
the Learned Trial Court that the Bail and suspension of sentence
was for a period of two months, failed to take steps and remained
at large, without surrendering to either the Learned Trial Court or
before this Court, thereby flouting the order of the Learned Trial
Court dated 21-02-2024 which had granted bail and suspended
his sentence for a specific period of time and informed him of the
details of the order. The Order specifies as follows;
"The convicts are informed that this bail is
granted for a period of two months to enable them
to file an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and
that they should do so within the prescribed period."
7. In such circumstances, despite the grounds raised by
the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, I am not inclined to
consider the bail petition or suspension of his sentence,
considering the conduct of the Appellant/convict who has failed to
abide by the specific orders of the Learned Trial Court supra and
flouted it with impunity.
8. I.A. No.01 of 2024 stands dismissed and disposed of
accordingly.
9. The Appellant who is present in Court be taken into
custody by the Sikkim Vigilance Police forthwith.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to take
appropriate steps in this context.
Ranjit Ghimirey vs. State of Sikkim
11. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
26-04-2024
ds
