Patna High Court - Orders
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Singh @ ... vs The State Of Bihar on 22 April, 2022
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.980 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2013 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh, son of Surendra
Singh, resident of village - Khadej, P.S.- Karghar, District - Rohtas.
2. Krishna Singh, son of Lallu Singh, Resident of village - Siswan, P.S.-
Kudara, District - Kaimur (Bhabhua).
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)
7 22-04-2022I.A. No.1 of 2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. Also, perused the written objection filed on behalf of the State to the application preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the appellants.
In the instant interlocutory application, the appellants have renewed their prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of appeal. Their prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2017. They have been held guilty for the offences Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.980 of 2016(7) dt.22-04-2022 2/4 punishable under Sections 323, 342, 376(2)(g) and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code. They have also been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They are in custody since 29.11.2013.
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the appellants and three others raped her on 08.11.2013. The appellants were arrested immediately after the matter was reported to the police. The statutory provisions prescribed under Sections 53-A and 164-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not followed. The prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses in support of the case out of whom, P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case, P.W.5 is the informant herself, P.Ws. 1 and 4 are the parents of the victim and the remaining two witnesses examined in this case are Dr. Nirmala Kumari Singh, the doctor, who examined the victim after the incident and P.W.7 Rajendra Prasad, who investigated the case. The doctor, who examined the victim categorically stated in her evidence that no injury was found on any part of body of the victim. She further stated that no abnormal stains including the foreign particle was seen on any part of the body of the victim. The vaginal swab was sent Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.980 of 2016(7) dt.22-04-2022 3/4 for microscopical examination and requisition was sent to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram for preservation for future and urine was sent for test of pregnancy. The report of vaginal swab did not confirm recent sexual intercourse and pregnancy test was found negative.
Mr. Thakur contended that the parents of the victim are hearsay witnesses and the investigating officer categorically admitted in his cross-examination that there was love affair between the victim and the appellant no.2. Lastly, he contended that by now the appellants have remained in custody for eight years and there is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up for hearing in near future.
Opposing the prayer for bail of the appellants, Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the victim has fully supported the prosecution case and the doctor, who examined the victim has not ruled out the possibility of the victim being raped.
Having heard the parties and perused the materials on record, since the appellants have remained in custody for Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.980 of 2016(7) dt.22-04-2022 4/4 more than eight years and the appeal is unlikely to be taken up for hearing in near future, in view of the evidence on record as also the guidelines relating to grant of bail to convicts during pendency of appeal issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab since reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291 and the observations made in case of Saudan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4633 of 2021], we are inclined to grant bail to the appellants. They are directed to be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No.229 of 2014 arising out of Karghar P.S. Case No.308 of 2013.
Realization of fine during the pendency of appeal shall remain stayed.
Interlocutory application stands allowed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Sanjeet/-
U T