RANCHI, India, Sept. 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 12:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Godda in connection with Sessions Trial No.263 of 2005 arising out of Sundarpahari PS Case No.12 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years.

2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant/applicant has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2018 passed in I.A No.8716 of 2018. Thereafter, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant/applicant has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in I.A (Cr.) No.8245 of 2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Now, by way of third attempt, the appellant/applicant has filed the present interlocutory application for suspension of sentence on the ground of completion of half of the sentence awarded to him.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant/appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The sole ground taken for suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant is that he has already remained in judicial custody more than seven years and, as such, he has completed half of the sentences awarded to him as he has remained in judicial custody during trial since 13.04.2005 to 06.08.2005 and after passing of the impugned judgment he has been in judicial custody since 05.09.2018.

5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that earlier a coordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the prayer of suspension of sentence of the appellant and thereafter the prayer for suspension of the sentence has been dismissed as not pressed, but he has been fair enough to submit that the appellant/applicant has completed about half of the sentence awarded to him.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the averments made in the instant interlocutory application being I.A (Cr.) No.8832 of 2025.

7. The sole ground taken on behalf of the applicant is that the appellant/applicant has completed half of the sentence awarded to him.

8. It appears that the applicant/appellant has remained in judicial custody for more than seven years and, thus, he has completed half of the sentences awarded to him.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the appellant/applicant has been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Saudan Singh V. The State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259.

10. Accordingly, I.A. (Cr.) No.8832 of 2025 stands allowed.

11. In consequence thereof, the applicant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- II, Godda, in connection with Sessions Trial No.263 of 2005 arising out of Sundarpahari PS Case No.12 of 2005.

12. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this Court for its consideration.

13. In view thereof, I.A. (Cr.) No.8832 of 2025 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.