Jharkhand High Court
Naulesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.67 of 2023
-----
Naulesh Kumar Singh .... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S.Majumdar, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
------
Order No. 05/Dated 13 April, 2023 th I.A. (Cr.) No. 1952 of 2023 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence dated 22.12.2022 passed in connection with Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act; and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for committing offence the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three with fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of fine to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently The matter was heard by this Bench on 23.03.2023 and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the State was called upon to file affidavit in objection to explain as to why the sentence inflicted upon the appellant be not kept in abeyance.
2
In terms of the aforesaid order, affidavit by way of objection has been filed duly been sworn by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chatra wherein the statement has been made about the specific complicity of the appellant in the instant case.
It has been stated that he is the active member of the banned group TSPC and, as such, if he is released on bail after keeping the sentence in abeyance, there will be wide adverse social impact.
Learned State counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
In response, Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by reiterating his argument by referring to the testimony of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-4 that the allegation as per the prosecution version is that appellant namely, Naulesh Kumar Singh, has pointed out towards his son Pradip Kumar Singh for identification of Raghubansh Jee and Roopchand Miya, the persons alleged to have committed the murder of said Pradip Kumar Singh. Their testimonies show that they have deposed that the appellant had not identified Raghubansh Jee and Roopchand Miya.
The further argument was made by referring to the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 wherein it has come that the deceased, namely, Pradip Kumar Singh was himself a member of the extremist group. It has also come that the said Raghubansh Jee and Roopchand Miya are the persons who 3 are involved in the commission of the crime of murder and are also member of the extremist group.
Therefore, it is the scuffle between the members of the extremist group and the appellant is having no nexus with their scuffle since he is not a member of the TSPC.
It has further been argued in rebuttal to the statement made in the affidavit that the appellant is a member of the TSPC that although the case has been instituted also under Section 17(i)(ii) of the CLA Act but there is no conviction under the said offence and, as such, it is incorrect on the part of the State to take the ground that he is an active member of the TSPC otherwise the appellant would have also been convicted under the provision of Section 17(i)(ii) of the CLA Act.
This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the ground as has been taken that the appellant is the active member of TSPC prima facie cannot be said to be correct since no evidence has been gathered by the investigating agency for proving the charge leveled under Section 17(i)(ii) of the CLA Act.
In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, this Court prima facie is of the view that it is a case where the instant application deserves to be allowed. 4
Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is allowed.
The sentence, so far as it relates to the present appellant, pertaining to Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2018 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.130 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1271 of 2017 is hereby kept in abeyance.
In view thereof, the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2018 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.130 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1271 of 2017.
The I.A.(Cr.) No.1952 of 2023 stands disposed of. It is made clear that whatever observation has been made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the appellant on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.67 of 2023 Let this matter be listed on 19.04.2023 along with Criminal Appeal(DB) No.117 of 2023.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) Birendra/