Allowed

Mansa Ram Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./1104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to set aside an order rejecting a bail application on the ground of prior dismissal. The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting the petitioner had served over half of a five-year sentence with no prospect of early appeal disposal, and granted bail subject to appellate court conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.03.2023 is set aside. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to conditions put by the learned appellate court.

Mansa Ram Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1104 of 2023

¶3

Mansa Ram Mahato … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, S.P.P.

¶8

03/11.08.2023 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶9

Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.

¶10

This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021 (M.C.R.A. No.327 of 2023, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.43/2020, G.R. No.747/2020, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 409 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 31.08.2021 and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021 (M.C.R.A. No.327 of 2023), which is still pending. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.329 of 2022, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2022. The said Cr.M.P. was dismissed considering that the petitioner has not served half of the sentence and observation was made that the petitioner may renew his prayer before the learned court after completion of

¶12

-2-

¶13

half of the sentence. He submits that now the petitioner has completed more than half of the sentence and in view of that fresh application was filed for bail, however, vide order dated 14.03.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella has been pleased to reject the petition only on the ground that earlier the case was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court. He submits that there is no discussion about the observation of this Court and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

¶14

Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State submits that the observation of this Court is there and it appears that the petitioner has completed half of the sentence.

¶15

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.09.2020 and he is in jail custody for about 2 years and 11 months. Considering that the sentence is of five years only and the petitioner has already remained in jail custody more than half of the sentence and also considering that there is no chance of deciding the said appeal at the earliest, in view of that the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021 (M.C.R.A. No.327 of 2023, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.43/2020, G.R. No.747/2020, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella is set aside. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to condition put by the learned appellate court. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶16

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶17

Ajay/

Mansa Ram Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansa Ram Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhullu Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Home

Ramrekha Chouhan and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Krishna Murari Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanika Bansal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shrikant Ray Vs Water Resources Departement