The court ruled that the seriousness of allegations against the appellant justifies the suspension of sentence and enables bail during the appeal process.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 1279 of 2025

1. This instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 18.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau in connection with Sessions Trial No. 105A of 2015, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2009 (G.R. Case No.901 of 2009) whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 and 120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /149 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for one year, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for four months and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 120(b) of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the case of the appellant is identically placed to that of the case of Talash Kharwar @ Chutaria @ Talash Khaewar @ Chutaria, appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1092 of 2022, Awatar Kharwar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1168 of 2024 and Fantar Kharwar @ Hantar Kharwar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1547 of 2024.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the allegation of culpability as has been found against the present appellant is identical to that of those appellants and as such, it is also a case where the sentence is to be suspended.

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

5. On the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

6. It has been submitted by referring to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit in objection that the nature of culpability committed by the present appellant is serious and the same has been established as per the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.8, as such, it is not the case where the such sentence is to be suspended.

7. 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 of witnesses available in the trial court record.

8. We, in order to examine the involvement of the present appellant said to be identically placed with the cases of Talash Kharwar @ Chutaria @ Talash Khaewar @ Chutaria, appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1092 of 2022, Awatar Kharwar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1168 of 2024 and Fantar Kharwar @ Hantar Kharwar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1547 of 2024 respectively, have gone through the testimony of the witnesses and has found that against the present appellant, the material has come that she has prompted other co-accused to kill the deceased. The other co-convicts since have been directed to be released on bail on the ground of no direct involvement in the commission of crime of rape or murder as has been alleged against Nawal Kharwar @ Niraj Kharwar, Mithilesh Kharwar, Japshi Kharwar and Deepak as has been deposed by the P.W.6, this Court is of the view that interlocutory application i.e. I.A.No.1279 of 2025 is fit to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1279 of 2025 sta