Gurucharan Munda vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No.10380 of 2019.

Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence against dismissal of appeal passed in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatshila preferred against the order of conviction and sentence both dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned trial Court in Dalbhum P.S. Case No.83 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.680 of 2012 (T.R. No.01 of 2019) whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/21 of the M.M.D.R. Act and awarded to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under both the offences separately and in case of default, simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case L.C.R. has already been called for by a co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 28.01.2020 and till today, the petitioner has remained in custody for more than ten months out of sentence of one year as he has remained in custody during pendency of this revision application for eight months and during the trial he has remained in custody approximately for three months, as such, without going into the merit of the case, considering the period of custody since 21.08.2019 the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and has submitted that it is a case where the conviction has been affirmed by the learned Trial Court and there is no material for interferring with the impugned judgment of conviction affirmed by the appellate court, as such, revision application may be dismissed and the prayer for suspension of sentence may not be allowed in favour of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the materials brought on record. It would be proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail after suspending his sentence as out of maximum punishment for one year, the petitioner has remained in custody for more than ten months. However, the petitioner shall not take any adjournment whenever case is listed for hearing of the revision application.

Apart from this the country is presently passing through a pandemic disease (covid 19), as such, the petitioner be released on provisional bail in connection with Dalbhum P.S. Case No.83 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.680 of 2012 (T.R. No.01 of 2019) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila with following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner be released on provisional bail during the lockdown period on personal bond of Rs.5,000/-.

(ii) As soon as, lock down period is over, the petitioner shall furnish two sureties of the amount of Rs.20,000/- each before the learned trial court.

(iii) The fine amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within 30 days after finishing of the lockdown period from the Pandemic disease (covid 19).

(iv) The jail authority shall ensure medical examination of the petitioner at the time of release due to pandemic disease (covid 19).

(v) At the time of release, the Civil Surgeon, Jamshedpur shall ensure medical examination of the petitioner and if requires petitioner shall be taken for quarantine.

(vi) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government.

However, the State is at liberty to file petition for cancellation of bail, if any thing is found which has not been brought to the notice of the court.

Accordingly, learned trial court is directed to release the petitioner provisionally on personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- with aforesaid conditions which shall be governed when lockin period is over.

Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.