Anil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 1 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1547 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No. -20 Year- 2013 Thana -WAINA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF)

ANIL KUMAR SON OF SRI BINDA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
RENU BIGHA, POLICE STATION- BEN, DISTRICT- NALANDA.

…. …. APPELLANT/S
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR …. …. RESPONDENT/S

Appearance:

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
CAV ORDER
Date: 01-09-2017

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as

learned Additional Public Prosecutor over the prayer for bail to be

allowed during pendency of instant appeal after suspending the

sentence in accordance with Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that

charge was framed for an offence punishable under Section 498A

of the IPC, 302/34 of the IPC in an alternative under Section

304B/34 of the IPC however, after scrutinizing the evidence

having adduced by the prosecution during course of trial, the

remaining accused were acquitted while appellant, being husband

of the deceased, has been found guilty for an offence punishable

under Section 306 of the IPC and accordingly, sentenced to

undergo R.I. for five years as well as to pay fine appertaining to

rupees five thousand in default thereof to undergo R.I. for four

months, additionally.

3. It has also been submitted that the appellant

surrendered on 11.06.2015 and since thereafter, he happens to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1547 of 2017 dt.01-09-2017 2

under custody. In the aforesaid background, it has been

submitted that against imprisonment inflicted for a period of five

years, appellant remained under custody for one year and ten

months. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that from the

evidence available on the record, there is every possibility of

instant appeal being allowed. Moreover, the conviction has been

recorded for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC

so taking together with all the circumstances available on the

record, appellant should be released on bail.

4. On the other hand the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the status of

the appellant being husband of the deceased puts an obligation

upon him which he failed to discharge which ultimately cost life of

the deceased and so, appellant should not be released on bail.

5. Forbidding, on the score of giving any kind of

finding, considering the materials available on the record, for the

present prayer for bail is rejected. In case, appeal is not taken up

for hearing within a year then in that circumstance, appellant will

be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)

Prakash Narayan

AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 02.08.2017
Uploading Date 01.09.2017
Transmission 01.09.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *