MAHENDRA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.A.K.Sahani, the learned counsel at the out set submitted that eleven accused persons were convicted by the SDJM- Spl.Judicial Magistrate,CBI Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 5(S) of 1994 corresponding to T.R. No. 1084 of 2009 for the alleged charge under sections 380/120B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code . It does not appear that substantive sentence was granted by the trial court for their conviction under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence the petitioners Mahednra Nath Singh, Md. Jainul andRaj Bahadur Sharma preferred the Cr.Appeal No. 106 of 2009 which was dismissed affirming and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners by the appellate court and against such dismissal , they have preferred this Cr.Rev.

(2.) MR.Sahani further submitted that other co-convicts of R.C. Case No. 5(s) of 1994 corresponding to T.R. No. 1084 of 2009 had preferred different appeal which was also dismissed and against that they preferred Cr.Rev.No. 1089 of 2010 wherein L.C.R was called for and the aforesaid Cr.Rev was admitted .C0-convicts Khursheed Parves Siddiqui,Mulkraj Singh and Kalpadrum Apta were also admitted to ad-interim bail during pendency of their Cr.Rev and that the defence of the instant petitioners also stands on similar footing, hence their ad-interim bail may be considered. The learned counsel appearing for the CBI does not dispute the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. . In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners Mahenddra Nath