Jharkhand High CourtIslam Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2017Author:D.N. PatelBench:D.N.Patel,Ratnaker BhengraIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                I.A. No. 1325 of 2014
                                              IN
                          Cr.Appeal (DB) No.1067 of 2012
                                          ­­­­­­­­­­­
     Islam Ansari                                 ----------     ------------ Appellant
                                    Vrs.
     The State of Jharkhand                         ----------     ----------- Respondent

                   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
                       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
                                  ----------
     For the Appellant              :      Mr. Abdul Kalam Rashidi, Advocate.
     For the Respondent             :      A.P.P.
                                     ----------

     06/Dated: 4th May, 2017Per D.N. Patel, J.1.    This interlocutory application has been preferred undersection 389 (1)of
     the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence dated 5th , September,
     2012 awarded to appellant by Additional Sessions Judge-1 st, Lohardaga                 in
     Sessions Trial No. 767/98(s), whereby the concerned court directed the         appellant
     to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten yearsu/s 458IPC, rigorous imprisonment
     for five years for the offence punishable undersection 387I.P.C. and life
     imprisonmentu/s 364IPC.2.    We are surprised to note the number of the Sessions Trial. In 24 districts in
     the State of Jharkhand there are 25 methods of giving number in Sessions Trial
     cases for which this court has passed order in not less than one dozen cases to
     give the number of the Sessions Trial under one denomination. This case is not
     exception of variety of methods of giving Session Trial number.3.    Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the
     evidences on record and, especially evidences given by P.Ws. 1,3,5 ,6 and P.W. 7
     there is prima facie case against this applicant-accused.4.    Looking to the gravity of offence, the quantum of punishment and the
     manner in which the appellant is involved in the offence of kidnapping , we are not
     inclined to suspend the sentence, awarded by the trial court, to the present
     appellant. Test Identification Parade has been convened and this appellant
     accused has been identified. Amount of ransom was demanded and was also paid.
     Looking to the evidence on record, there is more than prima facie cases against
     this applicant. Hence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him
     by the learned trial court. Previously also, prayer for suspension of sentence was
     rejected by speaking order dated 9th January, 2013 and there is no change in
     circumstances whatsoever thereof except efflux of time.-2-5.        Nonetheless, if the counsel for the applicant is ready to argue out the
         criminal appeal for its final hearing during ensuing summer vacation, he is at liberty
         to give slip to this Court for fixing the date of final hearing, during the ensuing
         summer vacation.6.        In view of the aforesaid reasons there is no substance in this interlocutory
         application, which is, accordingly, dismissed with above observations.(D.N.Patel, J.)




                                                               (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)



           Sharda/Nibha