Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 502 (JHR)

Sandip Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-09

ANANDA SEN, PRADIP KUMAR MOHANTY

body2017
JUDGMENT I.A. No. 7598 of 2016 Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 7598 of 2016, wherein prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant- Sandip Kumar on bail. 2. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life besides fine. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is in custody since 08.02.2012 i.e. about more than five years. There is no direct material against the appellant and he has further submitted that the deceased had committed suicide. He submits that the trial court has not considered the evidence of P.W.1 and this criminal appeal is not likely to reach within 10 years and, therefore, he may be released on bail. 3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant on the ground that the incident took place within a year of marriage and the dead body was recovered from the matrimonial house. P.W. 7, the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and issued the postmortem report (Ext. 10). In his evidence P.W.1, neighbour of the deceased, has stated that there was injury marks on the body of the deceased and P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 also corroborates the same, therefore, he may not be released on bail. 4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the informant, has supported the contentions made by the learned Addl. P.P. and submits that there was internal injuries on the person of the deceased and P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 and inquest report (Ext. ) also corroborates the same. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Perused the Lower Court Records. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and P.W.7, the Doctor, postmortem report (Ext.10), inquest report (Ext. 2, 3 & 4 and inquest report (Ext. ) also corroborates the same. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Perused the Lower Court Records. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and P.W.7, the Doctor, postmortem report (Ext.10), inquest report (Ext. ), period of custody and the fact that this criminal appeal will not likely to reach within 10 years, the trial court (2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bermo at Tenughat) is directed to admit the appellant- Sandip Kumar on bail, during pendency of appeal, on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper in connection with Session case nos. 158/2012, 317/2012 & 106/2013, subject to condition that the appellant shall deposit cash certificate or fixed deposit certificate of a nationalized bank for a period of ten years of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the informant (P.W.5)- Rajendra Ram, before the court below at the time of furnishing of bail bond. The trial court will give direction to the concerned bank that it will not permit informant (P.W.5) - Rajendra Ram to encash the same rather, it will release the interest accrued thereupon quarterly in favour of informant (P.W.5)- Rajendra Ram. I.A. No. 7598 of 2016 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 2385 of 2016 6. In the instant interlocutory application informant seeks leave of this Court to contest against the present appellant. Leave granted. 7. The informant may contest the appeal against the present appellant. 8. I.A. No. 2385 of 2016 stands disposed of.