The court ruled that given the evidence against the appellant, including witness statements, there are no grounds for suspension of sentence or bail.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

5 10-02-2026 Re. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 Heard S.K. Lal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on this interlocutory application seeking suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.

2. Lower court records have been placed before this Court.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 02.12.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 06.12.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 969 of 2019 arising out of Bakhtiyarpur P.S.

Case No. 13 of 2019 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-V^th, Barh, for the offence punishable under Sections 396 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 27 of Arms Act . He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 396 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other sections are not mentioned

4. The prosecution story is based on the fard-beyan of Govind Kumar (P.W.4), who has alleged as under:-

On 10.01.2019 at about 01.30 A.M, his uncle Arjun Singh woke after hearing sound of rattling and finding that buffalo was not there, he raised alarm as Chor-Chor. On this sound his father Nawal Prasad Singh went towards Arjun Singh and saw 6-7 persons fleeing away rashly with the buffalo. During this course, Satyendra Prasad Singh @ Baba Jee Rai @ Mahanth tried to caught his father Nawal Prasad Singh, then he put out pistol and shot fire to his father. During the course of catch, Ghoshi Rai @ Ghoshi (appellant) shot fire to his cousin Chandan Kumar and Ghoshi Rai was apprehended during the same period. But Satyendra Rai @ Baba ji and son of Ghoshi Rai namely Raj Kumar fled away making firing with three four unknown persons. During the same period Ghoshi Rai thrown pistol toward his son Raj Kumar Rai, who taking pistol fled away with buffalo. One black colour Bindolia was recovered from the waist of Ghoshi Rai (appellant) in which eleven cartridges of 0.315 bore was found. In the meantime, local police reached there and taken his injured father Nawal Prasad Singh and cousin brother Chandan Kumar in injured condition to Primary Health Centre, Bhakhtiyarpur, where his father died and injured cousin brother Chandan Kumar was referred to Patna for treatment. He got knowledge that buffalo of his villager Nagina Rai was also stolen. Two buffalos which were found, were not theirs. The same also did not belong to Nagina Rai. Satyendra Rai @ Babajee, Ghoshi Rai @ Ghoshi Gope and son of Ghoshi Gope namely Raj Kumar are notorious criminals. They were identified by them because they always came to his village. Several criminal cases have been lodged against them. During course of theft of Buffalo, they have killed his father and injured his cousin brother Chandan Kumar.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the appellant had not made any prayer for suspension of sentence. This Court had occasioned to consider the identical prayer on behalf of the two convicts namely, Rajkumar @ Raj Kumar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 13 of 2025 and Satyendra Rai @ Babaji Rai @ Mahant Ji @ Prem Shankar Rai @ Pandit Ji in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 95 of 2025. This Court has been pleased to grant suspension of sentence to Rajkumar @ Raj Kumar while rejecting the same prayer of Satyendra Rai @ Babaji Rai @

Mahant Ji @ Prem Shankar Rai @ Pandit Ji.

6. It is submitted that the case of the appellant stands on equal footing with Raj Kumar, son of this appellant. Referring to the deposition of the injured witness, namely, Chandan Kumar (P.W.5), learned counsel submits that the said witness has made a statement contrary to the statement of the inf