[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Md. Nazir @ Nazir vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.672 of 2017
---------
Md. Nazir @ Nazir ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.677 of 2017
Md. Akhtar Imam @ Akhtar Imam ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
———
For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate
(In Cr. Appeal No.672 of 2017)
: Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate
(In Cr. Appeal No.677 of 2017)
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P
(In both the appeals)
For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
(In both the appeals)
———
th
17/Dated: 14 July, 2025
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.672/ 2017
I.A. No.5549 of 2021
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not
want to press the present interlocutory application.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.5549 of 2021 stands dismissed as
not pressed.
I.A. No.6593 of 2025
1. The present interlocutory application is not being
pressed by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for
the informant.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.6593 of 2025 stands dismissed as
not pressed.
-1- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
I.A. No.6984 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
suspension of sentence in connection with the judgment of
conviction dated 18.03.2017 and order of sentence dated
20.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
-VI, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 2013 arising out of
Gandey P.S. Case No. 29 of 2013, (G.R No.1086 of 2013),
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341/ 149, 323/ 149
and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to
undergo RI for life along with fine for the offence under
Section 302/ 149 I.P.C.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present
appellant, namely, Md. Nazir @ Nazir, in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.672 of 2017, has been dealt with by the Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court in I.A. No.3592 of 2017, but, the
same was rejected vide order dated 04.10.2017. Thereafter,
the prayer for suspension of sentence has not been renewed.
3. It has been further contended that as of now the
present appellant, namely, Md. Nazir @ Nazir, has remained
in custody for 11 years, 11 month and 09 days approximately.
4. Learned counsel has submitted that co-convicts namely,
Md. Shahid, Md. Akram @ Ekram, Md. Anwar, Tauhid @
Tempu and Md. Mansur, have been granted bail by this Court
in Cr. Appeal (D.B) Nos.953 of 2019, 918 of 2019, 713 of
2017, 750 of 2017, and 725 of 2017 vide orders dated
18.08.2021, 22.04.2025, 28.04.2025, 15.05.2025 and
-2- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
05.05.2025, respectively.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the co-
convict, namely, Md. Kadir, has been directed to be released
on bail, after suspension of sentence passed by the trial court
vide order dated 20.03.2017, on 20.09.2024 in Cr. Appeal
No.3935 of 2024 [SLP (Crl.) No.2556 of 2024], by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
6. Learned counsel has placed the order of the Hon’ble
Apex Court dated 01.07.2025, passed in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.249 of 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has been pleased to pass the order requesting this Court to
consider the disposal of the present bail application, filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C of the present appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the
aforesaid ground, particularly on the ground of custody and
on the issue of parity, has submitted that the present
application may be allowed by suspending the sentence.
8. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State, however, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, so far as the
issue on merit is concerned, but, as per the instruction, which
she has received from the Superintendent, Birsa Munda
Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, has admitted the fact about the
period of custody i.e. 11 years, 11 month and 09 days.
9. This Court has also heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned
counsel appearing for the informant and he has also
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence by
agitating the issue the gravity of nature of commission of
crime as per the accusation made against the appellant which
-3- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
has been proved in course of the trial. It has been submitted
that it is not a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the judgment passed by the learned trial court as
also the testimony of the witnesses available in the trial court
record and the different documents related to the issue of
period of sentence having been undergone by the present
appellant. The prayer for suspension of sentence has been
renewed on the ground of period of custody and the issue of
parity. The prayer for suspension of sentence has already
been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this
Court while rejecting the prayer for bail vide order dated
04.10.2017, passed in I.A. No.3592 of 2017 and as such two
folds ground i.e. custody period of 11 years 11 months and 09
days has been taken as a sole ground by agitating also the
issue on the ground of period having been undergone by
other co-convicts, and they have been released on bail after
suspension of sentence by the order passed by this Court and
also by the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
11. We have perused the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court dated 01.07.2025, passed in Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.249 of 2025, wherein in para – 2, the following order has
been passed :-
“2. However, the fact remains that the bail
applications filed by the petitioners, namely, I.A.
No.6984 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.672
of 2017 and I.A. No.5711 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) No.677 of 2017 respectively are still pending
for consideration before the High Court and the
pending appeals are of the year 2017. We, thus,
request the High Court to consider the disposal of
the said bail applications, expeditiously if possible,
-4- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
within a period of three months.”
12. The present application has been listed on the strength
of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The present
matter has been assigned to this Court by the administrative
order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 09.07.2025 and
thereby, the present appeal has been listed along with the
present interlocutory application, for passing an appropriate
order on the issue of suspension of sentence.
13. Since, the fact about the period of custody has not been
disputed and the appellant has already remained in custody
for 11 years 11 months and 09 days against the sentence of
life imprisonment and the other co-convicts have already
been directed to be released on bail, having the same
accusation, this Court, therefore, is of the view, since, there is
no culpability said to have been committed by the present
appellant has been shown to be different to that of other co-
convicts and the present appellant has already been remained
in custody for about 11 years 11 months and 09 days, that the
present application is also to be allowed on the principle of
parity, since, other co-convicts have been directed to be
released on bail after suspension of sentence accordingly, the
present interlocutory application needs to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6984 of 2023 stands allowed.
15. In consequence thereof, the appellant, namely, Md.
Nazir @ Nazir, 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 Additional
Sessions Judge -VI, Giridih in connection with Sessions Trial
-5- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
No.296 of 2013 arising out of Gandey P.S. Case No. 29 of
2013, (G.R No.1086 of 2013).
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.677/ 2017
I.A. No.4799 of 2021
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not
want to press the present interlocutory application.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.4799 of 2021 stands dismissed as
not pressed.
I.A. No.6580 of 2025
1. The present interlocutory application is not being
pressed by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for
the informant.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.6580 of 2025 stands dismissed as
not pressed.
I.A. No.5711 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) & (2) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension
of sentence in connection with the judgment of conviction
dated 18.03.2017 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2017,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Giridih
in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 2013 arising out of Gandey P.S.
Case No. 29 of 2013, (G.R No.1086 of 2013), whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Sections 147, 148, 341/ 149, 323/ 149 and 302/149 of
the Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo RI for life
along with fine for the offence under Section 302/ 149 I.P.C.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present
appellant, namely, Md. Akhtar Imam @ Akhtar Imam, in Cr.
-6- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
Appeal (DB) No.677 of 2017, has been dealt with by the Co-
ordinate Division Bench of this Court in I.A. No.3590 of 2017,
but, the same was rejected vide order dated 04.10.2017.
Thereafter, the prayer for suspension of sentence has not
been renewed.
3. It has been further contended that as of now the
present appellant, namely, Md. Akhtar Imam @ Akhtar Imam,
has remained in custody for about 12 years.
4. Learned counsel has submitted that co-convicts namely,
Md. Shahid, Md. Akram @ Ekram, Md. Anwar, Tauhid @
Tempu and Md. Mansur, have been granted bail by this Court
in Cr. Appeal (D.B) Nos.953 of 2019, 918 of 2019, 713 of
2017, 750 of 2017, and 725 of 2017 vide orders dated
18.08.2021, 22.04.2025, 28.04.2025, 15.05.2025 and
05.05.2025, respectively.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the co-
convict, namely, Md. Kadir, has been directed to be released
on bail, after suspension of sentence passed by the trial court
vide order dated 20.03.2017, on 20.09.2024 in Cr. Appeal
No.3935 of 2024 [SLP (Crl.) No.2556 of 2024], by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
6. Learned counsel has placed the order of the Hon’ble
Apex Court dated 01.07.2025, passed in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.256 of 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has been pleased to pass the order requesting this Court to
consider the disposal of the present bail application, filed
under Section 430(1) & (2) of the BNSS, 2023 of the present
appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the
-7- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
aforesaid ground, particularly on the ground of custody and
on the issue of parity, has submitted that the present
application may be allowed by suspending the sentence.
8. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State, however, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, so far as the
issue on merit is concerned, but, as per the instruction, which
she has received from the Superintendent, Loknayak
Jaiprakash Narayan, Central Jail, Hazaribagh, has admitted
the fact about the period of custody i.e. about 12 years.
9. This Court has also heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned
counsel appearing for the informant and he has also
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence by
agitating the issue the gravity of nature of commission of
crime as per the accusation made against the appellant which
has been proved in course of the trial. It has been submitted
that it is not a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the judgment passed by the learned trial court as
also the testimony of the witnesses available in the trial court
record and the different documents related to the issue of
period of sentence having been undergone by the present
appellant. The prayer for suspension of sentence has been
renewed on the ground of period of custody and the issue of
parity. The prayer for suspension of sentence has already
been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this
Court while rejecting the prayer for bail vide order dated
04.10.2017, passed in I.A. No.3590 of 2017 and as such two
folds ground i.e. period of custody about 12 years has been
-8- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
taken as a sole ground by agitating also the issue on the
ground of period having been undergone by other co-convicts,
and they have been released on bail after suspension of
sentence by the order passed by this Court and also by the
order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
11. We have perused the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court dated 01.07.2025, passed in Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.256 of 2025, wherein in para – 2, the following order has
been passed :-
“2. However, the fact remains that the bail
applications filed by the petitioners, namely, I.A.
No.6984 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.672
of 2017 and I.A. No.5711 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) No.677 of 2017 respectively are still pending
for consideration before the High Court and the
pending appeals are of the year 2017. We, thus,
request the High Court to consider the disposal of
the said bail applications, expeditiously if possible,
within a period of three months.”
12. The present application has been listed on the strength
of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The present
matter has been assigned to this Court by the administrative
order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 09.07.2025 and
thereby, the present appeals have been listed along with the
present interlocutory applications, for passing an appropriate
order on the issue of suspension of sentence.
13. Since, the fact about the period of custody has not been
disputed and the appellant has already remained in custody
for about 12 years against the sentence of life imprisonment
and the other co-convicts have already been directed to be
released on bail, having the same accusation, this Court
therefore, is of the view, since, there is no culpability said to
-9- Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
have been committed by the present appellant has been
shown to be different to that of other co-convicts and the
present appellant has already been remained in custody for
about 12 years, that the present application is also to be
allowed on the principle of parity, since, other co-convicts
have been directed to be released on bail after suspension of
sentence accordingly, the present interlocutory application
needs to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5711 of 2025 stands allowed.
15. In consequence thereof, the appellant, namely, Md.
Akhtar Imam @ Akhtar Imam, 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 Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Giridih in connection
with Sessions Trial No.296 of 2013 arising out of Gandey P.S.
Case No. 29 of 2013, (G.R No.1086 of 2013).
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-Chandan/-
– 10 – Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.672 of 2017 & 677 of 2017
[ad_2]
Source link