IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 962 of 2024 ----

Rustam Ansari @ Md. Rustam Ansari … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent -------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Suman Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vasistha, Spl. P.P.

--------

Order No. 12 : Dated 19^th February, 2026 I.A. No. 435 of 2026

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of sole appellant for suspension of sentence dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in S.T. Case No. 363 of 2021 arising out of Tisri P.S. Case No. 03 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed undergo SI for one year.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although earlier the appellant had filed I.A. No. 7050 of 2024, which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29^th November, 2024 but again the prayer is being renewed on the ground of custody of more than four years out of the maximum punishment of 10 years coupled with the ground on merit.

3. It has been submitted that the charge was framed under Section 304 B IPC but no ingredient has been found of the offence which attracts the offence under Section 304B IPC, but the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC. It has been submitted that serious prejudice has been caused since no opportunity has been given to the appellant to defend himself showing innocence that the appellant was not in any way involved in abetment of committing suicide.

4. Submission has been made that however the learned trial court has come out with the reasoning, as would be evident from the impugned judgment that no prejudice has been caused if the charge has not been framed under Section 306 IPC since the question to that effect has been put in the examination of the witnesses and even in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Further submission has been made that the petitioner since has already remained in custody for about four years against the maximum punishment of 10 years and the appeal is of the year 2024, and by the time the appeal will be taken up the appellant would have completed the entire sentence., which will be highly prejudicial to the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the appellant may be released on bail by suspending the sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

7. While on the other hand, learned Mr. Vineet Kumar Vasistha, learned Spl, P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been submitted that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the issue of prejudice, as would be evident from the finding so recorded in the impugned judgment. He has tried to demonstrate by defending the paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment by referring the statement made by P.W. 8, wherein the question to the effect of abetment of suicide, as per the ingredient as available under Section 306 IPC has already been put to the appellant, hence, it is not the question to create prejudice to the appellant.

8. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a fit case to release the appellant by suspending the sentence.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the other material available in the trial court record.

10. The fact about framing of charge, based upon the material collected in course of investigation, under Section 304B IPC is not in dispute. The prosecution has proceeded to establish the charge under