Md. Sarful Islam @ Md. Saiful Islam vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard both counsels through video conferencing as well as through telephonic conversation in which both the counsels Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, counsel for the State could hear each other and also I was able to conduct the hearing.

This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh has pointed out that four co-accused have had their sentence suspended in I.A. No. 1608 of 2020 by order dated 07.05.2020 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 99 of 2020 and they have been granted bail during the pendency of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 99 of 2020. Accordingly on the same basis the appellant of the instant case seeks same privilege.

Learned counsel for the State, learned APP Mrs. Priya Shrestha has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the basis of heinousness of the case but she has not denied the cited order granting bail to the other four co-accused persons.

Having gone through the arguments of both the sides, having gone through the records and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, above named, 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 learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi in Doranda P.S. Case No. 634 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 5963 of 2014 ( S.T. Case No. 361 of 2016).

I. A. No. 2715 of 2020 stands disposed of.