The court ruled that consistent witness testimony across related trials can justify bail suspension during appeal, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 13731 of 2024

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of B.N.S.S, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.11.2024 passed by Shri Kumar Pawan, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st, Godda in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 18 of 2019 arising out of Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 269 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1718 of 2018 and T.R No. 3692 of 2018, by which the appellants have been sentenced and directed to undergo imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 307 /34 of the I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for three (03) months and further sentenced to undergo R.I for five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000- each for the offence under Section 452 /34 of the I.P.C and in default of payment, further S.I for two (02) months separately.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the co-accused namely Raj Kumar Thakur who has also been convicted, although in the separate trial being Sessions Trial No. 53/2020, has been directed to be released on bail after suspension of sentence vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed by this Court in an interlocutory application being I.A No. 13875 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 14 of 2025.

3. It has been contended that the informant (P.W.4) of the instant case has been examined as PW-2 in the Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2020 and his testimony has been recorded with respect to the said Raj Kumar Thakur, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 14 of 2025, wherein the testimony of the informant PW-2 who has been examined in the present case as PW-4 is exactly same, therefore, the present applicants/appellants are eligible for bail after suspension of sentence.

4. While on the other hand, Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

5. It has been contended that he has not disputed the fact that the witness i.e. the injured informant who has been examined as PW-2 in the Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2020 in respect with Raj Kumar Thakur, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 14 of 2025 in T.R No. 2594 of 2020 has also been examined as PW-4 in the Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2019 wherein the case of present applicants has been tried and it has also not been disputed that the version of informant is same in both the Sessions Trial.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the L.C.R. and other documents available on record.

7. In the backdrop of the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this Court, has gone through the material available on record, has found that the injured informant has been examined as PW-2 in the Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2020 in respect with Raj Kumar Thakur, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 14 of 2025 and he has also been examined as PW-4 in the Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2019 wherein the case of present applicants/appellant has been tried.

8. The said Raj Kumar Thakur has been enlarged on bail after suspension of sentence vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed by this Court in an interlocutory application being I.A No. 13875 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 14 of2025.

9. It needs to refer herein that the both the aforesaid Sessions Trial has arisen out with same P.S Case being Godda (Town) P.S Case No. 269 of 2018. Further, from record it is evident that injured informant has testified on the same line in both the aforesaid Sessions Trial and the sai