Patna High Court - Orders
Yasin Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 28 June, 2024
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.151 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2018 Thana- KANHAULI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Yasin Ansari S/o Late Nemo Ansari R/o Village- Murhadih, PS.- Kanhauli,
Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
5 28-06-2024Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional P.P. for the State.
2. The appellant in this case is seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 25.02.2020 and 28.02.2020 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2019 (CIS No. 17 of 2019) arising out of Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 38 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 326A and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 326A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.151 of 2024(5) dt.28-06-2024 2/3 months additional imprisonment. For brevity sake, sentences awarded under other Sections of I.P.C are not being mentioned.
4. As per the prosecution story, on 07.03.2018 at 12 o'clock in the night this appellant along with others entered into the room of the informant and attempted to do some illegal act with her and when she protested, it is alleged that all the accused persons caught hold of her, took her outside the house and assaulted by means of iron rod and poured kerosene on her body due to which she suffered burn injuries on her whole body. The husband of the informant who used to work at Sitamarhi came and took her to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi for treatment in an unconscious condition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appellant is the father-in-law of the victim and it is a case of false implication of the appellant who is seventy years old and has been languishing in jail for about six and half years.
6. It is further submitted that the victim suffered burn injuries while she was engaged in charging battery and the battery was blown.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. for the State submits that it is the specific case of the victim (PW-4) that the victim had strained relationship with her husband who had solemnised his second marriage but the victim had no dispute with Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.151 of 2024(5) dt.28-06-2024 3/3 him and she had left her husband on her own because she was being tortured. She has stated that her father-in-law (the appellant) wanted her to be with him as his kept. The allegation of acid attack has been made against the appellant and the prosecution case has been proved in course of trial. Considering that it is a case of acid attack and the medical evidence which has been proved by the Doctor (PW-5) corroborates the statement of PW-4, this appellant does not deserve privilege of suspension of sentence and release on bail.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and the materials on the record which we have prima-facie perused, this being a case of acid attack and burning caused to PW-4 in the said attack, we are not inclined to direct suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail at this stage. Prayer is refused.
9. If the appeal is not heard within a period of one year from today, the appellant may renew his prayer for bail.
10. Liberty in the meantime is granted to the appellant to seek early hearing of the appeal.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Shailendra Singh, J) Rishi/-
U T