Back
2022 Supreme(Pat) 628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 667, 651, 715, 749, 766 of 2021
(14.11.2022)
Saryug Mandal & Ors. (in 667)
Goltan Muni @ Gholtu Muni (in 651)
Naval Kishor Mandal & Ors. (in 715)
Siya Ram Mandal & Anr. (in 749)
Laxmi Mandal & Anr. (in 766) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar .... Respondent
(in all)
Act Referred
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389(1) – Suspension of sentence and release on bail – There is no evidence of any specific overt act against appellants – Contradictions in evidence of witnesses and material contradictions in prosecution case make out a case for exercise of discretion under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. – Sentence suspended and bail granted during pendency of appeal. (Paras 9 to 11)
For the Appellants : M/s Vikramdeo Singh, Amit Kumar Anand (in 667); Raj Kumar, Rajnish Kumar (in 651); Arun Kumar Mandal, Ramanand Poddar (in 715); Ravindra Kr Sinha No.2, Lalita Kumari (in 749); Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Shivjee Pandey, Ajita (in 766).
For the Respondent: M/s Satya Narayan Prasad (in 667); Ajay Mishra (in 651); Abhimanyu Sharma (in 715); Shashi Bala Verma (in 749); Dilip Kumar Sinha (in 766).
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—These appeals have been placed before us for considering the appellants' prayer for their release on bail and suspension of sentence during the pendency of this appeal, under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. By the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2021 and order or sentence dated 15.09.2021, passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea passed in Session Trial No. 129 of 2018, arising out of Rupauli Police Station Case No. 191 of 2016, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—
| Appellant's name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.667 of 2021 | ||||
| Saryug Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| Vinod Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| Pappu Kumar Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 651 of 2021 | ||||
| Goltan Muni | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 715 of 2021 | ||||
| Naval Kishor Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| 27 of the Arms Act | R.I. for five years | 5,000/- | R.I. for three months | |
| Ravindra Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| Baijnath Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 749 of 2021 | ||||
| Siya Ram Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| Bal Kishor Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 766 of 2021 | ||||
| Laxmi Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
| Pramod Mandal | 302 read with 120B/34/35 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | R.I. for six months |
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 715 of 2021 has, at the very outset, submitted that he does not intend to press the prayer of appellant No. 1 Naval Kishor Mandal for suspension of his sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of this appeal. The prayer on behalf of the appellant Naval Kishor Mandal for suspension of sentence is accordingly rejected.
4. Despite opportunity granted to the State to file written objection in terms of the first proviso to Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for brevity), no such written objection has been filed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 715 of 2021, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 749 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 766 of 2021; though such written objections have been filed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 651 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 667 of 2021.
5. As all these appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. arising out of the same judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, which is under challenge, they have been heard together on the point of consideration of their respective prayers for suspension of sentence and their release on bail.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutors representing the State in different appeals.
7. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that P.W.-6, who is the informant, alleged in the First Information Report (F.I.R. for brevity
