Digeshwar Mistry @ Digu Mistry vs The State of Jharkhand

D.N. Patel, J.—Present Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the present applicant u/s 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence of the present applicant, awarded by the trial court. Having heard Learned Counsel for both sides and looking to the evidence on record, there are sufficient evidences against the present applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has raised several points, which have been raised on the earlier occasion, and previously, prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant has been rejected by this Court. This is third application for suspension of sentence.

Looking to several circumstances, which have been enumerated in Paragraph-20 of the judgment to be read with depositions of prosecution witnesses referred in this Paragraph-20, delivered by the trial court on the basis of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, there is prima facie case against the present applicant.

In view of the facts and looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and looking to the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence, as alleged by the prosecution, and also looking to the fact that on previous occasion also, the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this Court, this time also, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court, to the present applicant.

There being no substance in this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 2487 of 2010), the same is, hereby, dismissed. Registry is directed to get neatly typed paper books prepared and kept on record, as required u/s 191 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 and thereafter this Criminal Appeal will be listed for final hearing looking to the period of custody of the present applicant.