Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1117 (JHR)

Shankar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-14

D.N.UPADHYAY, VIRENDER SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, C.J.: I.A (Cr.) No. 3279 of 2014 Through the instant application, applicants-appellants-Shankar Mahto and Ganesh Mahto are praying for suspension of substantive sentence during the pendency of the main appeal. It needs to be referred here that their co-convicts have filed separate appeals. 2. Admittedly, their application for the same relief stands declined by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2012. Thereafter, this appellant again moved another application in I.A.(Cr.) No.1214 of 2012 which was withdrawn vide order dated 08.08.2012. Thus, it is the third application for suspension of substantive sentence. 3. Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey representing the State. 4. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha states that after the dismissal of the earlier bail application of the applicant, one of the co-convicts Guru Prasad Mahato knocked at the door of this Court vide Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 411 of 2012, in which, he has also sought suspension of substantive sentence vide I.A. (Cr.) No.6036 of 2013 which came to be disposed of on 19.09.2013. Learned counsel submits that vide order passed in aforesaid Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 411 of 2012 co-convict Guru Prasad Mahato has been granted the concession of suspension of sentence. He has placed on record photostat copy of the said order. Relevant portion thereof reads:- “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's conviction alongwith some other is based on insufficient evidence; charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved against the appellant; the appellant has been convicted with the help of Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code; there is no allegation against the appellant causing any injury; there is specific allegation giving fatal pistol shot injury against Kallu Mahato, Thakur Mahato and Manikant Mahato; nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellant's possession; the appellant has been falsely implicated due to long standing enmity between the appellant and the deceased family. Learned APP opposed the appellant's prayer for bail but has not disputed the said contentions. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record, the appellant, above-named, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. Learned APP opposed the appellant's prayer for bail but has not disputed the said contentions. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record, the appellant, above-named, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godda in connection with S.T. No. 156 of 2007/T.R. No. 25 of 2011.” 5. Learned counsel submits that if one looks at the First Information Report recorded at the instance of Diwakar Mahto, father of Satish Mahto-deceased, after Kailu Mahto, Thakur Mahto and Manikant Mahto had released one shot each from their respective fire arms hitting Satish Mahto-deceased, accused Guru Prasad Mahto had also fired at informant and his family members but incidently the shot released from his fire arm did not cause any injury to the informant or any of his family members. According to learned counsel, involvement of applicants-appellants is in the shape of general allegations and that no specific part has been attributed to them. He further submits that according to the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or even in the prosecution evidence adduced during trial, applicants are not shown to be armed with any specific weapon. 6. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that once co-accused Guru Prasad Mahato has been already granted concession of substantive sentence in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.411 of 2012, applicants-appellants-Shankar Mahto and Ganesh Mahto, who are languishing in the jail since long, also deserve the concession of suspension of sentence. 7. Whatever is stated on facts by learned counsel for the applicants-appellants is not disputed by the learned State counsel. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the instant application deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. It is directed that applicants-appellants-Shankar Mahto and Ganesh Mahto be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godda – convicting Court/successor Court in connection with S.T. No.156 of 2007 (T.R. No. 25 of 2011). 11. 11. I.A. (Cr.) No. 3279 of 2014 stands disposed of. 12. Registry is directed to convey the order to the concerned Court without any delay.