Jharkhand High Court
Sanjit Kumar Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 April, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.464 of 2017
with
I.A. No.2221 of 2017
Sanjit Kumar Mehta ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.389 of 2017
with
I.A. No.1831 of 2017
Kunal Kumar ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Appellants : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
(in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.464 of 2017)
Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate
(in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 389 of 2017)
For the State : APPs
04/Dated: 19/04/2017
I.A. No.2221 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.464 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of
the appellant Sanjit Kumar Mehta and I.A. No.1831 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.389 of
2017 has been filed on behalf of the appellant Kunal Kumar praying for grant of bail after
suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, who have preferred
criminal appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2017 and order of
sentence dated 21.02.2017 passed by Sri Ramshanker Singh, learned Additional
Sessions Judge1, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 54/2015 whereby and where under
the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 4(b) of
Explosive Substance Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo R.I for five years and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of
payment of fine to undergo S.I for six months.
L.C.R. has been been received.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the appellant Sanjit
Kumar Mehta in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.464 of 2017 is in jail custody since 17.12.2014 and
appellant Kunal Kumar (in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.389 of 2017) was in custody since
16.12.2014to 16.12.2015. Further, it has been submitted that Ext. 6 & 7 has not been proved properly, thereafter a petition dated 28.06.2016 under section 293 Cr.P.C has been filed by the State for exhibiting the F.S.L report and vide order dated 25.07.2016, the trial court found that though the case was fixed for judgment on 05.05.2016 but FSL report of the seized material was not available on record. Thereafter judgment was adjourned and vide order dated 25.07.2016 the F.S.L. report was marked as Ext. 7, Thus, the petition under section 293 Cr.P.C dated 28.06.2016 casts doubt regarding the genuineness of both the documents which is sine qua non in terms of provision of section 294 Cr.P.C.
Learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that a petition dated 28.06.2016 under section 293 Cr.P.C was filed by the State and thereafter F.S.L report was marked as Ext. 7 by the trial court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to admit the appellants on bail and the appellants named above are directed to be released on bail during pendencey of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of Sri Ramshanker Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge1, Koderma in connection with Sessions Trial No. 54/2015.
I.A. No.2221 of 2017 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.464 of 2017) and I.A. No.1831 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.389 of 2017 stand allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court through FAX.
Satyarthi (Anant Bijay Singh, J.)