Patna High Court - Orders
Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal @ Anil Kumar @ Anil ... vs The State Of Bihar on 6 March, 2018
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar, Arvind Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2017 Thana- PATORI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal @ Anil Kumar @ Anil Ray, S/o Shatrudhan Rai,
resident of Village- Sarari, P.S.- Patori, O.P.- Mohanpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 84 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2017 Thana- PATORI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pinki Devi, Wife of Mukesh Chaudhary @ Pam Pam Chaudhary, Resident of
village- Sahdai, Police Station- Sahdai, District- Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 82 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Shri Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv.
Shri Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Shri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, A.P.P.
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 84 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Shri Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Shri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR)
4 06-03-2018In both appeals, appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No.553 of 2017/467 of 2017, arising out of Patori P.s. Case No.94 of 2017 for commission of offence under Section 364A/34 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.82 of 2018(4) dt.06-03-2018 2/4 such, both appeals were taken up together for hearing for considering the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants during pendency of the appeals.
In Cr.Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2018, Sri Anil Kumar Jha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellant, whereas Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. In Cr.Appeal (DB) No.84 of 2018 Sri Bijay Bhushan Prasad learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State.
The aforesaid appeals were admitted for hearing. While admitting and summoning lower court record, it was observed that the prayer for bail would be considered immediately after receipt of lower court. Accordingly, after receipt of lower court record, both appeals have been listed under the heading "For Orders" for considering the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants during pendency of the appeals.
Sri Anil Kumar Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2018, by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.82 of 2018(4) dt.06-03-2018 3/4 way of cursorily referring to the evidence, has argued that no cogent evidence was brought on record, even then learned trial Judge has incorrectly passed order of conviction and sentence. He submits that P.W.3, who is brother of the victim and informant, has not named the appellant as accused. He further submits that of course, during investigation, reference has come regarding demand of ransom to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs, but the same fact has not been substantiated by other cogent evidence. Accordingly, he prays for passing favorable order.
In respect of Cr.Appeal (DB) No.84 of 2018, Sri Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that save and except the material that this appellant (wife of one of the co-accused) had only assisted her husband, there is no other material to show her involvement. Accordingly, it has been prayed for passing favourable order.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have cursorily examined the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of victim, who has been examined as P.W.7 and after going through the same, it is evident that in respect of appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal @ Anil Kumar, there is certain evidence, which suggests that his white colour Alto Car having Registration No. BR-07V 9012 was used for carrying victim Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.82 of 2018(4) dt.06-03-2018 4/4 from one place to other place. Besides this, the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal was also identified by the victim in dock during trial. So far as Pinki Devi is concerned, there is evidence that during captive, she was providing meal to the victim. Meaning thereby that she was assisting her husband, against whom investigation is still pending.
Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that it is a case of kidnapping for ransom and there is evidence against the appellants on record, we are of the opinion that it is not a case for passing favorable order.
Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail stands rejected.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) ( Arvind Srivastava, J) nawalkrs/-
U T