Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2010 (sentence passed on 16.12.2010) passed by Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IInd, Seraikella in S.T. No. 126 of 2003] Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011 --------- 1. Ashok Agarwal, S/o late Subelal Agarwal 2. Lalu Agarwal, S/o late Subelal Agarwal 3. Bihari Lal Agarwal, S/o late Subelal Agarwal 4. Dinesh Agarwal, S/o Banbari Agarwal 5. Sraban Agarwal @ Sarban Kumar Agarwal @ Sarwan Kr. Agarwal, S/o Sri Biharilal Agarwal All are resident of Village- Sini, P.O. & P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharswan … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 --------- 1. Gopal Prasad Agarwal, S/o Late Damodar Prasad Agarwal 2. Rinku Agarwal, S/o Sri Rameshwar Lal Agarwal 3. Sanjay Agarwal, S/o Sri Shyamlal Agarwal All residents of Village- Sini, P.O.- Sini, P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011 --------- Arjun Lal Rajak , S/o Sri Munni Lal Rajak, R/o Sini, P.O.- Sini, P.S.- Saraikella, District- Saraikella-Kharsawan … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011 --------- Rajesh Agarwal @ Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Sri. Rameshwar Lal Agarwal, R/o Village- Sini, P.O.-Sini, P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 & Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011) Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -2- D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011) Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. --------- C.A.V. Order Dated, the 1st July, 2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 & Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011, Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011 and opposed by Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Special P.P. and learned Addl. P.P. respectively appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2010 (sentence passed on 16.12.2010) passed by Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IInd, Seraikella in S.T. No. 126 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/149 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/. They have also been convicted for the offence u/s 353/149 of the IPC and u/s 448/149 of the IPC and have been sentenced to R.I. for two years and one year respectively. In case of default in payment of fine the appellants were to undergo further R.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case is based on the written report of Hamida Khatoon dated 16.01.2000 itself at around 11:30 A.M., Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -3- in which, it has been stated that the son of the informant namely, Abbas Khan was standing in front of a betel shop situated at Sohandih, Sini Road when the constables of Sini Police Outpost along with 10-12 persons came and took the son of the informant to the Police Outpost. It has been alleged that when the informant and others had gone to the Police Outpost, they have seen on the terrace all the accused persons committing assault upon the son of the informant by sticks, fists and kicks. The son of the informant was tied with a rope. At about 12:00 noon the son of the informant was taken down from the terrace and was untied. Due to the assault committed he become unconscious and fell down. The accused Rajesh Agarwal @ Rajesh Kumar Agrawal (appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011) had thrown a stone on the son of the informant who suffered bleeding injuries. He was later on taken to T.M.H., Jamshedpur for treatment. Based on the aforesaid allegations Seraikella P.S. Case No. 4 of 2000 was instituted u/s 147, 148, 448, 353, 325, 307, 225 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 126/2003. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 149, 302, 353, 448 of the IPC which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W.1 (Jahur Khan) has stated that the incident is of 16.01.2000 at 11:00 A.M. He was in the betel shop of Islam Ansari. Both Islam and Abbas were present there; Abbas sitting on a bicycle by taking assistance of the electric pole which he was holding. From a tempo three Policemen came and took away Abbas with them. He and some other persons had thereafter gone to Sini Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -4- P.S. where they had seen Abbas in the terrace with his hands tied. Several persons were assaulting Abbas and amongst them he had identified Rajesh Agarwal, Rinku Agarwal, Ashok Agarwal, Lalu Agarwal, Bihari Agarwal, the son of Bihari Agarwal, Sanjay Agarwal, Gopal Dhobi, Jitu Mahato, and Dinesh Agarwal. After the brutal assault was committed, Abbas was taken down from the terrace and he fell down. Rajesh Agarwal had picked up a stone and threw it on the head of Abbas. Abbas was lying in a pool of blood. It was Harun who picked up Abbas and took him to Tata Main Hospital where Abbas died. A written report about the incident was given by the mother of Abbas, in which, he had put his signature. Islam Ansari had also put his signature. He has proved his signature as well as the signature of Islam Ansari on the written report which have been marked as Exhibit 1 and 1/1 respectively. He has identified all the accused persons in the dock of having taken part in the assault upon Abbas Ansari. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Abbas Ansari is his nephew. One of his sons is named Anwar. A case of murder and dacoity was instituted against Abbas and Anwar at Medinipur as suggested by the defence but he had denied the same. He and the others had reached the Outpost after one hour of Abbas being taken to the Outpost by the Police. The Outpost does not have a lockup for keeping a suspect. When he had gone to the Outpost he was accompanied by Islam Ansari, Harun Rashid and few others. When he had reached the terrace of the Outpost the assailants were already present in the said place. He did not know the assailants and came to know about them on that day itself. He came to know about the accused persons when there was an alarm by the villagers taking the name of the assailants. When he reached Sini O.P. he found these persons committing assault upon Abbas. He has deposed that the assault on Abbas had started prior to his arrival at the Outpost. The assault continued for 10-15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -5- minutes since after his arrival. When he and the others had gone to the terrace the accused persons committing assault and the Police had dragged Abbas downstairs and left him near the staircase and untied him. Abbas was unconscious. Rajesh had assaulted him on his head with a stone. He had seen Rajesh picking up the stone and assaulting Abbas with the stone. There was an assemblage of 100-150 persons there. He had not seen as to whether there was blood on the stone or not. He had thereafter taken Abbas on a Maruti Car to Tata. It is incorrect to say that when Rajesh was going to buy kerosene oil on a tempo Abbas had stopped the tempo near Sohandih Basic School and after assaulting him snatched Rs. 1700/- from him. 7. P.W.2 (Islam Ansari) has stated that he was in his betel shop on 16.01.2000 from 9:00 A.M. onwards when at 11:00 A.M. Abbas came on a bicycle and stood near the betel shop. Jahur Khan was sitting on a culvert near the shop. Bholu @ Harun Rashid was also sitting there. In the meantime, three Police personnel got down from a tempo and 10-12 persons also assembled and the Police had caught Abbas on the ground that Rajesh had filed a case of extortion against him. Abbas was taken to Sini O.P. by the Police and the persons who had come had also followed them. Jahur Khan went to the Outpost followed by the mother of Abbas. He also left after closing the shop. When he had reached the Outpost, several persons were seen already present. He thereafter saw Abbas on the terrace of the Outpost with his hands tied with a rope and about 12-14 persons armed with lathi, iron rod etc. committing assault upon Abbas. After sometime Police got Abbas down and untied him which resulted in Abbas falling down on the ground and this prompted Rajesh to assault Abbas on his head with a stone. After 10 minutes Bholu @ Harun Rashid brought a car and Abbas was taken to T.M.H. He had signed on the written report given by the mother of Abbas to the Police. He has Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -6- proved his signature on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. The reason for the assault is a quarrel between Abbas and the accused as Abbas had demanded five litre kerosene oil from the accused who was a kerosene dealer. The accused was known to him. He knows the name of some of the accused. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was never recorded by the Police. He has not recognized accused Bihari Lal though he was present in Court. He had not gone to the terrace of the Outpost and had watched the incident from below. The distance from the place where he was standing and the Police Outpost would be around 20-25 feet. The stone, with which, Rajesh struck Abbas on his head would be more than 20 Kg. in weight and would be about 18-20” long having width of 15”. He had not seen the mother of Abbas, Jahur Khan, Bholu @ Harun Rashid and Mukhtar going towards the terrace of the Outpost. 8. P.W.3 (Md. Mukhtar) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W.4 (Dr. Lalan Choudhary) was posted as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, M.G.M., Jamshedpur and on 17.01.2000 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Abbas Ansari and had found the following: A. Abrasion 1. All over face and forehead. 2. 15 cm x 10 cm over tight shoulder. 3. Multiple abrasion of different size and shape all over left upper limb. 4. 10 cm x 3 cm over right-side chest nipple area transversally. 5. 3 cm x ¼ cm over right clavicular region. 6. 1 cm x 1 cm over left side chest middle part. 7. 10 cm x 6 cm over left side chest lower part. 8. Multiple tiny abrasion over dorsum aspect of right hand. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -7- 9. Abrasion all over back of chest and abdomen. 10. 2 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm x 2 cm and 15 cm x 2 cm over left knee. 11. 2 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm x 1 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm over left thigh outer and upper part. 12. Multiple tiny abrasions over right ankle medial aspect. 13. 3 cm x c cm over right-side abdomen upper part. B. Lacerated wound 1. 3 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm over right-side forehead. 2. 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm over chin. 3. 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm longitudely over right ear pinna. 4. 5 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm over back of left ear. On dissection Skull- contusion present all over scalp. Massive subdural bleeding with contusion of whole brain present. The cause of death was opined to be due to the above noted injuries. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not mentioned the name of specific injury which resulted in the cause of death. 5. P.W.5 (Hamida Khatoon) is the informant and the mother of the deceased who has stated that on 16.01.2000 at 11:00 A.M. her son Abbas was standing near the betel shop of Islam Ansari when three Police personnel came on a tempo and after disclosing that a case has been instituted against him took away her son Abbas. She along with others had rushed to Sini O.P. where she had seen her son on the terrace of the Outpost with his hands tied and 12-15 persons committing assault upon him with rod and lathi. The Police had untied his son after which Rajesh and his brother dragged Abbas downstairs. He was crying and pleading for mercy when Rajesh took a big stone and struck it on the head Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -8- of Abbas. Her son was taken to T.M.H. but the Doctors declared him dead. She had submitted the written report to the Police. She had identified Rajesh Agarwal and Rinku Agarwal in the dock. She had identified all the ten persons standing in the dock of having participated in the commission of assault upon her son. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not know the name of the assailants but can recognize them from their faces. She only knows the name of Rajesh. The Police had not conducted a Test Identification Parade. Nobody tired to save her son and when she went, she was pushed aside. Even the Police did not try to save her son. 6. P.W.6 (Md. Rafique) has signed on the inquest report along with Harun Rashid. He has proved his signature as well as the signature of Harun Rashid upon the inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit-3 and 3/1 respectively. 7. P.W.7 (Hafiz Alam) has proved his signature and the signature of Seikh Mukhtar on the seizure list of seized blood- stained stone, three blood-stained sticks and a rope which have been marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/1. 8. P.W.8 (Bharat Prasad Singh) was posted as an Officer-in-Charge in Seraikella P.S. On 16.01.2000 he had gone outside but had returned at 12:00 noon when he had come to know about the incident of loot at Sini for which a station diary entry was made and the matter has been enquired upon by the Police. After returning from Sini, Police Arvind Rai had given an application of Rajesh Agarwal which was registered as Seraikella P.S. Case No. 03/2000. Arvind Rai had disclosed that the person against whom the case was filed was assaulted by Rajesh Agarwal and others and he has been taken to T.M.H. in an unconscious condition. He had registered a station diary entry and thereafter left for inquiry. In Sohandih an application was given to him by the mother of Abbas which revealed a cognizable offence. He has Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -9- proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. He had thereafter returned to the Police Station and after registering the case had himself taken over investigation. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence which are three in number. The first place of occurrence is the betel shop of Islam Ansari situated in an unmetalled road which meets the metalled road near the Basic School of Sohandih. This was said to be the place from where Abbas Ansari was taken away by the Police. He had recorded the statement of Islam Ansari, Jahur Khan and Md. Mukhtar. The second place of occurrence is the Police Outpost at Sini where it was said that Abbas Ansari was assaulted. The Outpost has an iron gate as its main door and on entry there exists a staircase which goes to the terrace which has a dimension of 25’ x 20’ and is surrounded with railings. The third place of occurrence is an unmetalled road which converges with the metalled road near the Kali Mandir where blood both wet and dry was found. A blood-stained stone was also found nearby. The witnesses had stated that this stone was used by the accused persons to commit assault upon Abbas. A seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Exhibit-7. He had obtained the inquest report as well as the post-mortem report and on completion of investigation had submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the deceased was a veteran criminal who had cases instituted against him in Bihar and West Bengal. A proceeding was also started against the deceased Abbas for preventive detention under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act in the year 1990. Rajesh Agarwal had instituted a case of snatching against the deceased. When the assault was committed upon Abbas, he was in Police custody. If an incident occurs in the middle of the terrace persons standing on the ground will not be able to see. He did not find any sign of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -10- assault in the terrace. The witness Jahur Khan in his statement had not separately named Rinku Agarwal, Ashok Agarwal, Lalu Agarwal, Bihari Agarwal, Sanjay Agarwal, Gopal Dhobi, Jitu Mahato and Dinesh Agarwal. 9. P.W.9 (Krishna Rai) has stated that the incident is of 16.01.2000 at 10:00 A.M. He was at that point of time in his duty at Sini Police Outpost and along with him were Vivek Paswan and Krishna Mohan Rai. There was a quarrel between Abbas Ali and Rajesh Agarwal which information was given to the Outpost. He stayed in the Outpost while Vivek Paswan and Krishna Mohan Rai brought Abbas Ali to the Outpost. A large crowd had gathered at the Police Outpost. He has stated that Rajesh Agarwal and others had broke open the door of the Outpost and forcibly took Abbas Ali to the terrace and started assaulting him with lathi, danda etc. On information the Police force had arrived from the Police Station after which Abbas Ali was sent to T.M.H. where he died. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was deputed in the Outpost a month and a few days back and therefore he did not know anyone. He does not know the persons who had committed assault upon Abbas. 10. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the commission of murder of Abbas Ansari. 11. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011 that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 indicate that the allegations are vague and omnibus against the appellants except against Rajesh Agarwal who was involved in the murder of Abbas Ansari with a stone. Similar is the evidence of the informant who has been examined as P.W.5. The cause of death as per the post-mortem report centres around the assault committed by Rajesh Agarwal. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -11- Even P.W.9 who was a constable in Sini Outpost had not uttered anything against the present appellants. Mr. Das has submitted that the conviction of the appellants was u/s 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC but the prosecution has failed to prove that there was an existence of a common object even if it is assumed that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence at the time when the incident had occurred. 12. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 & Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011 has submitted that as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) the assault had taken place at the terrace but the same was not visible from the ground and hence it is difficult to ascertain as to whether they were instrumental in committing assault upon the deceased or not. The exaggeration in the evidence of the witnesses would be evident from the fact that the description given by P.W.2 of the stone makes it quite big and the possibility of the appellant Rajesh Agarwal picking the stone and throwing it on the head of Abbas Ansari diminishes. The autopsy report has not specified the injury which proved fatal for Abbas Ansari. The identification of the appellants as the assailants have also not been properly ascertained. 13. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011 has submitted that no overt act has been alleged against the appellant whose conviction was on account of his presence at the place of occurrence. 14. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the respondents have submitted that several witnesses have witnessed the assault and all the appellants had made a concerted assault upon the deceased which culminated in the assault with a stone on the head of the deceased by the appellant Rajesh Agarwal. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -12- 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 16. The precursor to the incident of assault is of a case of snatching instituted by Rajesh Agarwal (appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011) against Abbas Ansari which led to the Police apprehending Abbas Ansari from near the betel shop of Islam Ansari (P.W.2) and when P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and others had arrived at the Sini Outpost they had seen Abbas Ansari being assaulted by the accused persons on the terrace of the Outpost and after such brutal assault he was dragged downstairs in an unconscious state after which Rajesh Agarwal had picked up a big stone and had thrown it on the head of Abbas Ansari. Though Abbas Ansari was immediately taken to Tata Main Hospital but he did not survive. So far as the appellants’ barring Rajesh Agarwal is concerned, they seem to have committed assault in a concerted fashion at the terrace. Rajesh Agarwal apart from participating in the assault on the terrace had also given a ferocious blow with a stone upon Abbas Ansari. It is to be noted that there was no personal grudge of the appellants against Abbas Ansari save and except Rajesh Agarwal as he claims to be a victim of snatching at the hands of Abbas Ansari. There was merely an assemblage of person with rods and lathis which are common instruments and such assemblage was in a short span of time and merely because such persons are alleged to have participated in the assault it cannot be deciphered that they showed a common object in eliminating Abbas Ansari. We say this with respect to the assailants but not necessarily to the appellants for the reasons mentioned in the under noted paragraph(s). 17. All the witnesses have given a common refrain that they had seen the assault from the ground and the assault was taking place in the terrace of the Outpost. In this context, we may refer to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) who has Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -13- stated that in the terrace he had not found any signs of assault. This appears to be strange considering the brutality with which Abbas Ansari was assaulted as described by the eye-witnesses. There also does not seem to be recovery of any incriminating articles which would indicate about the veracity of such evidence of the eye-witnesses. P.W.8 has further stated that the incident of assault had taken place in the centre of the terrace and it is not possible to see any incident from persons who are downstairs. P.W.9 being a constable at Sini Outpost and being on duty at the relevant point of time could be inferred to be the only person apart from P.W.1 amongst the eye-witnesses to have access to the terrace but he has categorically stated that he does not know the persons who had committed assault upon Abbas Ansari. Even the presence of P.W.1 in the terrace has sought to be refuted by P.W.2 in his cross-examination. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that when he had gone to the terrace of the Outpost the assault was already over by then. He had come to know about the name of the assailants from the villagers. P.W.2 has admitted of having not gone to the terrace of the Outpost. P.W.5 who is informant and the mother of the deceased has stated that she does not know the name of any of the appellants except Rajesh. Though P.W.2 and P.W.5 have claimed to have seen the incident from the ground but in view of the evidence of P.W.8 and the circumstances which revealed that no sign of assault was found on the terrace of the Police Outpost such claim does not have any ground to stand. 18. There is thus a clear dearth of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the appellants barring Rajesh Agarwal for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. However, the case of Rajesh Agarwal stands on a different footing as he had assaulted Abbas Ansari on the head with the stone in presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 and their evidence proved beyond doubt about the act of the appellant Rajesh Agarwal. Although in the postmortem report the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -14- cause of death has not been specified with respect to a particular injury but on a plain reading of the postmortem report it can be deciphered that the fatal injury sustained by Abbas Ansari was on the head caused by hard and blunt substance. The dissection of the skull revealed presence of contusion all over the scalp and massive subdural blocking with contusion of whole brain present. The other injuries sustained by the deceased were namely, abrasions primarily on non vital parts of the body. The assault with a stone has therefore been corroborated by the postmortem report. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that Rajesh Agarwal was instrumental in committing the murder of Abbas Ansari. So far as the other appellants are concerned, as we have held above their identification and participation in the assault has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 19. Consequently, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2010 (sentence passed on 16.12.2010) passed by Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IInd, Seraikella in S.T. No. 126 of 2003 so far as the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011 are concerned. 20. Since the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011 are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 21. However, as regards Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011, the same is hereby dismissed. 22. We, therefore, dismiss Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 103 of 2011 and allow Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2011, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 30 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2011. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18231-DB ) -15- 23. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 1st July, 2025. A. Sanga /-