Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 860 of 2006 Futwa @ Mukhtar Alam, Son of Late Makshud Sheikh, resident of Koya Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 905 of 2006 1. Mashrul Sheikh, Son of Late Shutki Sheikh. 2. Abad Hussain, Son of Late Fasadu Sheikh. 3. Hasa Sheikh @ Hasna Sheikh, Son of Vasu Sheikh. All are resident of Koya Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Rajmahal, district- Sahibganj. ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 973 of 2006 Mojaul Sk. Son of Mojaffar Sk. Resident of Village- Koila Bazar, P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 976 of 2006 Jamil Sk. @ Jamil Akhtar, Son of Late Hazi Bhaddu Sk., resident of Village- Koila Bajar, P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1041 of 2006 1. Punni Sk. @ Multan Sk., Son of Late Rajmani Sk. 2. Taiyab Alam, Son of Md. Sahabuddin Sk. Both are resident of Village- Koila Bajar, P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent Page | 2 --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. Order No. 16/Dated: 07th January, 2025 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 905 of 2006 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 905 of 2006, Appellant No. 4, Hasna Sheikh has died during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Since, no substitution application has been filed. Hence, the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 905 of 2006 stands abated. So far, Appellant No. 4 Hasna Sheikh is concerned. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 976 of 2006 4. It is reported that in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 976 of 2006, the sole appellant has died during the pendency of this appeal and up till now, no substitution application has been filed. 5. Therefore, this appeal against the sole appellant, Jamil Sk. @ Jamil Akhtar stands abated. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 860 of 2006, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 905 of 2006, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 973 of 2006, and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1041 of 2006 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Argument Concluded. 8. Judgment is reserved. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/