Conviction may be stayed if it leads to significant disqualification consequences, protecting the appellant's rights pending appeal.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 3 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. By filing this interlocutory application, the appellant no. 1 prays for staying the order of conviction dated 13.04.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Patna City, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 738 of 2016 arising out of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 93 of 2016. By the judgment and order under appeal, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B/306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and has been awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The appellant no. 1 preferred I.A. No. 2 of 2023 for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal which has been allowed vide order dated 03.04.2024 after noticing that the appellant no. 1 had remained in incarceration for half of the period of sentence but the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 submits that he was an employee of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank holding the post of an officer but after his conviction in the instant case, he has been dismissed from service on the ground of conviction alone. A copy of the dismissal order dated 07.05.2021 has been brought on record with the application as Annexure ‘2’.

5. Learned counsel submits that as per Para 30(4) of the Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010, an officer or employee who has been dismissed in pursuance of sub-regulation (3) and the relative conviction is set aside by the Higher Court and the officer or employee is acquitted, he shall be reinstated in the service of the Bank but on perusal of Annexure ‘2’, it would appear that the Appellant No. 1 has been dismissed with retrospective effect of 13.04.2021. It is his submission that if his conviction is not suspended, the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable loss as in case of his acquittal in the instant appeal after a lapse of so many years, he would suffer irreparable loss and cannot be compensated by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the appellant no. 1 has availed COD loan which is outstanding as on 09.05.2024 at Rs.7,38,450.96/- and because of his dismissal from service, in absence of an order of stay of conviction, not only his source of livelihood is badly affected, he has now no source of income to repay the loan amount.

6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and Others , (1995) 2 SCC 513 which has been duly discussed in the order dated 08^th September, 2010 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2008 ( Sheo Parsan Dubey Vs. State of Bihar ). It is submitted that Sheo Parsan Dubey (supra) was Assistant Manager of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. He was convicted under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life as well as fine of Rs.25,000/-. He was dismissed from service vide Letter No. 1273 issued by the Chairman. It was contended befor