Patna High Court
Baikunth Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.510 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2003 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Baikunth Rai, Son of Late Raja Rai R/o Vill- Sugridih, P.s- Runnisaidpur,
Dist- Sitamarhi
2. Awadhesh Rai @ Awadhesh Pd. Yadav, Son of Devi Lal Rai R/o Vill-
Sugridih, P.s- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
3. Uma Rai @ Uma Pd. Yadav, Son of Late Raja Rai, R/o Vill- Sugridih, P.s-
Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
4. Surin Rai @ Sirin Rai @ Surendra Rai, Son of Late Siya Ram Rai R/o Vill-
Sugridih, P.s- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
5. Arvind Rai @ Arvind Kumar, Son of Late Siya Ram Rai R/o Vill- Sugridih,
P.s- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
6. Rabindra Rai, Son of Devilal Rai R/o Vill- Sugridih, P.s- Runnisaidpur, Dist-
Sitamarhi
7. Biren Rai @ Birendra Rai, Son of late Siya Ram Rai, R/o Vill- Sugridih, P.s-
Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
8. Shambhu Rai @ Shambhu Prasad, Son of Late Sita Ram Rai R/o Vill-
Sugridih, P.s- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Rai, Son of Kailash Rai, R/V- Sugridih, P.S- Runisaidpur, Dist-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 416 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2003 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Subhas Rai @ Subhash Prasad Yadav @ Subhash Prasad, Son Of Late
Satyadev Prasad Yadav, R/O Village- Sugridih, Chak Sambhuwa, P.S.-
Mahindawara, District- Sitmarhi.
2. Rajesh Rai @ Rajesh Raushan, Son Of Subhas Rai @ Subhash Prasad
Yadav, R/O Village- Sugridih, Chak Sambhuwa, P.S.- Mahindawara,
District- Sitmarhi.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Rai, Son of Kailash Rai, R/O Village- Sugridih, Chak Sambhuwa, P.S.-
Mahindawara, District- Sitmarhi.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.510 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025
2/4
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 510 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayann Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 416 of 2022)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-08-2025
Both the Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of
the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2022 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-X, Sitamarhi, in Criminal Appeal
No. 116 of 2015, whereby learned Appellate Court below
upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.11.2015
passed by learned A.C.J.M-VI, Sitamarhi, in G.R.
No. 1060 of 2003 bearing Trial No.389 of 2015, whereby
learned A.C.J.M. had found all the Petitioners guilty under
Section 147, 323, 427, 379 read with Section 149 IPC and all
of them have been sentenced to the imprisonment for one year
under Section 147 and 323 IPC, and six months under Section
427 IPC and R.I. for two years under Section 379 IPC. They
have been also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- which is
payable to the informant and in case of default to pay the fine,
they have been directed to undergo Additional S.I. for one
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.510 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025
3/4
month.
2. In both the revision petitions, the Petitioners
have challenged the conviction and the quantum of sentence.
However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
Petitioners confined his submission only to the quantum of
sentence, saying that in view of the facts and circumstances,
the Petitioners should have been given benefit of Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, because the sentence is lower
than three years.
3. However, learned counsel for the
informant/victim submits that they may be given benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, but they must be directed to pay
adequate compensation because one pumping set has been
stolen by the Petitioners which costs Rs.14,800/-
4. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and in view of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, the Petitioners are given benefit of
Section 4 of the Act. The sentence awarded against the
Petitioners is set aside directing them to be released on their
entering into a bond with one surety to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during one year and in the
meantime, they are directed to maintain peace and good
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.510 of 2022 dt.04-08-2025
4/4
behavior.
5. However, under Section 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, the Petitioners are also directed to pay
compensation of rupees twenty thousands to the
informant/victim. This amount will be payable by all the
Petitioners by way of paying rupees two thousands each by
way of cash or bank draft to the informant at the time of
furnishing surety bond.
6. Both the petitions stand disposed of,
accordingly.
7. LCR be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 05.08.2025 Transmission Date 05.08.2025