Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

This is an admitted Criminal Appeal (S.J.). The L.C.R has been received.

I.A. No.5588 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the appellant no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh, for grant of bail by suspending the sentence, during the pendency of this appeal, in connection with Sessions Trial No.36 of 2019, arising out of Bankmore (Bhuli) P.S. Case No.281 of 2017 (G.R. No.3976 of 2017) to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad.

Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted under sections 307/34 of the IPC and the appellant no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh has also been convicted under sections 506/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. He submits that the appellant no.1, Manoj Kumar Singh has remained in custody prior to trial from 01.02.2018 to 21.05.2018 i.e. for about 4 months 20 days and after his conviction he has been in custody since 28.03.2024.

The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that so far as appellant no.2 is concerned, the prayer for suspension of sentence has not been made as she was already granted provisional bail by the learned trial court which was subsequently confirmed by this Court.

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that so far as the evidence of the PW-7 is concerned there are contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence. He further submits that PW-14 has stated that he has not found the broken, decayed and fallen bamboo at the place of occurrence and he happened to be the investigating officer of the case. He submits that there are further contradictions in the statement of PWs, 2, 3, 8, 10 and 11 and the first version of the F.I.R was not disclosed and concocted fardbeyan has been made before the police. He submits that even the injuries were found to be simple in nature and he submits that there is every likelihood of the appellant of being acquitted in the final hearing.

The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground that even half of the sentence has not been completed by the appellant.

Considering that the appellant no.1 namely, Manoj Kumar Singh has remained in custody prior to trial for 4 months and 20 days and he is in custody from the date of judgment dated 28.03.2024 and it was pointed out that there are contradictions between the statements of PWs, and hence, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh, during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, upon suspending the sentence, the appellant no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh, is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad, in connection with Sessions Trial No.36 of 2019, arising out of Bankmore (Bhuli) P.S. Case No.281 of 2017 (G.R. No.3976 of 2017).

I.A. No.5588 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.