IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1341 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-692 Year-2018 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ======================================================

Jitendra Manjhi S/o Nageshwar Manjhi R/o vill - Bahari, P.S. - Sherghati, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Adarsh Parihar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

7 10-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The sole-appellant in this case is seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal. He has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 and 07.09.2024 respectively passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with S.Tr. No.315 of 2019/106 of 2023, arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case No.692 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo two years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the brother of the deceased lady. She was married in the year 2018 and, as per the prosecution case, she was being tortured immediately after the marriage. It is stated that the appellant had taken her from her Maike on the pretext of visiting a fair near by the Suryamandal check post, however she did not return and her dead body was found in the bushes.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and on last seen theory, which in itself is a very weak case and the learned Trial Court judgment is likely to be interfered with on this ground alone. It is submitted that the appellant has already spent 7 years and 4 months in incarceration and this appeal is of the year 2024 which is not likely to be heard in near future.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that there are overwhelming materials on record which shows that the victim was taken by the appellant on the pretext of visiting nearby fair but, thereafter, he was done to death by the appellant. It is submitted that the presence of the appellant with the victim has never been questioned by the defence rather it is admitted that the victim was with the appellant when she left her Naihar on the pretext of visiting fair.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the postmortem report indicates not only the strangulation marks have been found on the body of the victim, the other injuries in the form of three small abrasions on the left side of the chin has also been found and the time of the death is within 18 to 36 hours. Therefore, the postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case even as it is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that the appellant has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment, therefore, on the face of overwhelming materials, the period of incarceration may not be a good ground for grant of privilege of suspension of sentence and release on bail.

7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and the evidences which we have noticed, prima facie, at this stage, we are of the considered opinion that on the face of the evidences showing that the appell