BAIJNATH RAM And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - I.N.GUPTA (A.P.P), ,MAYANK MRIDUL,SAHIBJOT SINGH,DIWAKAR JHA,ANISH LAL,PRABHAT KR SINHA,VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA — Cr.A(SJ)/343/2009

Disposed: Contested--Dismissed with modification on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010099262009

Filing Number

Cr.A(SJ)/7306/2009

Filing Date

18-Apr-2009

Registration No

Cr.A(SJ)/343/2009

Registration Date

18-Apr-2009

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

Section 374(2) & 389(1) 389(2) ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed with modification

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BAIJNATH RAM And ORS

    Adv. A.S.DAYAL,REKHA SHANKAR,REKHA SHANKAR, ,REKHA SHANKAR,REKHA SHANKAR,REKHA SHANKAR,REKHA SHANKAR

  2. 2.Bidya Bhushan Ram

  3. 3.Bidya Sagar Ram

  4. 4.Lakshmi Ram Alias Lakshmi Narayan Ram

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - I.N.GUPTA (A.P.P), ,MAYANK MRIDUL,SAHIBJOT SINGH,DIWAKAR JHA,ANISH LAL,PRABHAT KR SINHA,VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaView PDF

    Case Summary: Cr.A(SJ) /343/2009 Court Decision: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal on merits but modified the sentence. Instead of imprisoning the appellants, the court released them under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, requiring each to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and maintain good behavior for one year. Key Reasoning: The court found that although the appellants were convicted of rioting and causing injuries with weapons in a 2004 incident, the injuries were simple in nature and over two decades had passed since the occurrence. Critically, the appellants had no previous criminal antecedents, making this their first offense. The court deemed probation more appropriate than substantive imprisonment given these circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaView PDF

  5. 20-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  9. 19-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  10. 05-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  11. 22-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  12. 08-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  14. 17-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  16. 13-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  17. 10-Oct-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  18. 26-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  19. 19-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  20. 12-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  21. 29-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad

  22. 22-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 18-Apr-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.A(SJ)/343/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Cr.A(SJ) /343/2009 Court Decision: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal on merits but modified the sentence. Instead of imprisoning the appellants, the court released them under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, requiring each to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and maintain good behavior for one year. Key Reasoning: The court found that although the appellants were convicted of rioting and causing injuries with weapons in a 2004 incident, the injuries were simple in nature and over two decades had passed since the occurrence. Critically, the appellants had no previous criminal antecedents, making this their first offense. The court deemed probation more appropriate than substantive imprisonment given these circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case