The court ruled that the appellants demonstrated insufficient overt acts contributing to the crime, allowing for bail pending appeal.

ORDER :

I.A. No.10583 of 2024 in Cr. A.(DB) No. 1147/2024,

I.A. No. 11285 of 2024 in Cr. A.(DB) No. 1194/2024 &

I.A. No. 1592 of 2024 in Cr. A.(DB) No. 1264/2024

1. All these interlocutory applications have been filed under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by which these appellants-applicants have prayed for suspension of sentence dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No.358 of 2022, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No.329 of 2022 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.230 of 2023) whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 /34 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 /34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months each and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months each .

2. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellants-applicants that so far as the present applicants are concerned, there is no specific overt, act even if the entire testimony of the witnesses will be taken into consideration together have been attributed.

3. It has been contended that the basis of conviction is the statement given by the deceased prior to his death disclosing the name of some of the persons particularly Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma, Anil Paswan @ Bhikhu Paswan and Anil Ram @ Deepak but so far as these appellants-applicants are concerned, no reference of their names have been taken by the deceased, however, they have been shown to be, as per the prosecution version, at the place of occurrence. There is no culpability having found against these three applicants, since nobody has come forward to say regarding their involvement in the commission of crime of murder of the deceased. The argument has been advanced that it is a case where the fight between two groups and in course thereof, when the murder of the deceased had been committed, the crowd has assaulted the person who has given bullet injury upon the deceased namely Santosh Chandravanshi who has died at the spot.

4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has further submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case for suspension of sentence.

5. While on the other hand, Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

6. It has been contended by referring to the testimonies together of all the witnesses including the informant Vikesh Singh, who has been examined as P.W.3 that these three appellants-applicants were present at the place of occurrence and they have also assaulted the deceased. Therefore, taking into consideration, their presence at the place and having not denied the same, it is, therefore, not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses available in the trial court record and the other material exhibits as available therein.

8. As per the prosecution version, which is admitted case of the prosecution as it would be evident from the testimony available in the trial court record which have been taken into consideration by going through all the witnesses together that the assault by the bullet has b