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
THE STATE OF BIHAR …. …. RESPONDENT/S
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
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
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.)
CAV DATE 02.08.2017
Uploading Date 01.09.2017