IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 440 of 2025

Anil Oraon …… Appellant

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Munni Devi (Informant) ……. Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate

: Mr. Apurv Krishna, Advocate : Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate

: Ms. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP

For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate

-----------

ORAL ORDER IN COURT

th

07/Dated: 05 January, 2026

I.A. No.6653 of 2025

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the

appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2025 passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, then learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. No.146 of 2022, arising out of Meral P.S. Case No.315 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R No.740 of 2021) by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven (07) years and to pay the fine of Rs.25,000/- to the

injured/victim as compensation.

2. I.A. No.6653 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail,

during pendency of the appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP for the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar

No.2, learned counsel for the Informant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the allegations against the appellant is not correct and he has been implicated due to previous enmity. It is submitted that doctor has found four injuries simple on the person of the injured and only one injury i.e. Injury No.5 has been found grievous in nature. It is submitted that P.W.1 Ramchandra Oraon has been declared hostile whereas P.W-2- Surendra Oraon is a formal witness. P.W-4 is doctor whereas P.W-7-Sita Ram Oraon is a formal witness. It is submitted that P.W-3-Munni Devi is the informant whereas P.W-6-Mukhdeo Oraon is the injured and they are the interested witnesses. It is submitted that the appellant had earlier remained in custody from 21.12.2020 to 18.03.2021 (i.e. for around three (03) months) and thereafter the appellant is in custody since 07.05.2025 (i.e. for around eight (08) months) total around eleven months (11) and hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant had assaulted the injured-P.W-6 namely Mukhdeo Oraon on his head, due to which he sustained five injuries on his person and one of the injuries was found grievous in nature and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has further submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for inflicting assault upon the husband of the informant. It is submitted that the P.W-3-Munni Devi is the informant of this case and she has fully supported the prosecution case and the husband of informant was hospitalized and there was profused bleeding from his head and nose and for which C.T. Scan was done. It is submitted that P.W-6 is the injured namely, Mukhdeo Oraon, who has also stated that the appellant had assaulted him by hammer due to which he sustained injury on his head, nose and neck and due to which there was profused bleeding. P.W-5 is the I.O of this case who has submitted charge sheet against the appellant. It is submitted that the P.W-4 is the doctor who had found Injury No.1 to 4 simple but Injury No.5 was grievous and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the records, it appears that the appellant had assaulted the injured P.W-6-Mukhdeo Oraon by hammer due to which he sustained five injuries on his person on his head and n