Patna High Court – Orders
Babloo Singh @ Lochana vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3100 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2014 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Babloo Singh @ Lochana Son of Late Hira Prasad Singh Resident of village -
Damodarpur, P.S.- Rosera, District - Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2092 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2014 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ranjit Thakur SON OF Chandradev Thakur Village- Benga, P.S.-
Khodawandpur, Chhaurahi O.P., Dist.- Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2106 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2014 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Nand Kishore Sah S/o Late Hemant Sah R/o Village- Sihma, P.S.-
Khodawandpur, District- Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2258 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2014 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Singh Son Of Late Mangal Singh Resident
Of Mohallah - Prabhu Thakur Ward No. 4, P.S. - Rosera, District - Samastipur
(BIHAR). At Present Residing At Village - Panchupur, P.S. - Rosera, District -
Samastipur (BIHAR)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2283 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2014 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ratan Prasad Kashyap @ Ratan Prasad Son Of Late Ramji Prasad Village-
Panjiyar Toli, Ps- Rosera, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3100 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2025
2/6
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3100 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Zeyaul Hoda, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2092 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Yogesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ramchandra Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2106 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Yogesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2258 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Zeyaul Hoda, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2283 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kumar Rajeev, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Zeyaul Hoda, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2025
Heard the parties in the batch of cases.
2. The present appeals have been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 27.03.2024 and order of sentence
dated 28.3.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-IInd, Rosera, Samastipur passed in Sessions
Trial No. 164/2015, 164/2015/ of CIS No.111/2015
corresponding to Rosera P.S. case no.279/2014 registered on
09.09.2014 by which the appellants have been held guilty for
the offences punishable under section 395 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine to the
tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants have further been held
guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of six months and fine to
the tune of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3100 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2025
3/6
120(B) IPC. They have further been found guilty and sentenced
to undergo R.I. of 5 years and fine to the tune of Rs.5000/- for
offences punishable under section 27 Arms Act. They have
further been sentenced to undergo R.I. of 10 years for the
offences punishable under section 412 IPC and a fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default, further imprisonment of 3 months. All
the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. A coordinate bench earlier admitted the appeals on
3.12.2024 (Babloo Singh @ Lochana vs. the State of Bihar),
14.08.2024 (Ranjit Thakur vs. the State of Bihar), 11.07.2024
(Nand Kishore Sah vs. the State of Bihar), 29.07.2024
(Santosh Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar) and 30.07.2024
(Ratan Prasad Kashyap vs. the State of Bihar) and called for
the Trial Court’s Records which have now been received.
Further, the learned APPs were directed to file written objection
pursuant thereto, save and except Bablu Singh [Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No. 3100 of 2024] and Nand Kishore Sah [Cr. Appeal (SJ) 2106
of 2024], the written objections have come in all the other
cases.
4. The trial Court after cognizance took up the matter
and having found the case to be true against the accused
persons, convicted them and sentenced as follows:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3100 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2025
4/6Sl. No. Appellant Sentence Fine
Name
1. 1. Babloo 10 years (u/s 10,000
Singh @ 395,412 IPC)
Lochana 6 months (S.I) (u/s 1000/-
120B IPC
five years (u/s 27 of 5000/-
the Arms Act
2. Ranjit Thakur 10 years (u/s 395, 10,000
412 IPC) 6 months 1000/-
(S.I) (u/s 120B IPC
five years (u/s 27 of 5000/-
the Arms Act
3. Nand Kishore 10 years (u/s 395, 10,000
Sah 412 IPC) 6 months 1000/-
(S.I) (u/s 120B IPC
five years (u/s 27 of 5000/-
the Arms Act
4. Santosh 10 years (u/s 395, 10,000
Kumar Singh 412 IPC) 6 months 1000/-
@ Santosh (S.I) (u/s 120B IPC
Singh (Peon five years (u/s 27 of 5000/
of the Central the Arms Act
Bank of
India)
5. Ratan Prasad 10 years (u/s 10,000
Kashyap @ 395,412 IPC) 6 1000/-
Ratan Prasad months (S.I) (u/s
120B IPC 5000
five years (u/s 27 of
the Arms Act
5. The details of the appellants inasmuch as their
criminal antecedent and the judicial custody period is/are as
follows:
Sl. Appellant Name Criminal Period of custody and
No. Antecedent recovery
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3100 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2025
5/6
1. Babloo Singh @ three (i) 30.09.2014-
Lochana criminal 11.08.2015
antecedent
which (ii) 27.03.2024 - till date
include
Section 307 recovery – Rs.17,500/-
of the IPC
2. Ranjit Thakur No (i) 28.11.2014-
criminal 21.08.2015
antecedent (ii) 27.03.2024 – till date
no recovery
3. Nand Kishore Sah One (i) 26.09.2014-
criminal 16.10.2015
antecedent (ii) 27.03.2024- till date
recovery- Arms and
98,000/-
4. Santosh Kumar No (i) 22.09.2014-
Singh @ Santosh criminal 12.10.2015
Singh (Peon of antecedent (ii) 27.03.2024-till date
the Central Bank
of India)
5. Ratan Prasad two (i) 22.09.2014-
Kashyap @ criminal 14.08.2015
Ratan Prasad antecedents
in which
convicted (ii) 27.03.2024-till date
in one case
u/s 302 of
the IPC
6. It is the joint submissions of the parties that though
the recovery has been made in some cases, Santosh Kumar
Singh has been made accused/convicted on the ground that he
being the staff/an employee of Central Bank of India was
present when the employee of the Company was counting
money before getting it deposited in the Bank, they have as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3100 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2025
6/6
stated above, remained in custody for more than a year and as
such needs sympathetic consideration.
5. Learned APPs in all the cases jointly submit that it
is a heinous crime in which the accused participated and the
Trial Court has convicted them. Most of the them have criminal
antecedent and there is recovery/seizure of the amount/arms
also from them. Further submission is that though Ranjeet
Thakur has no criminal antecedent nor there is any recovery, his
period of custody is less than two years.
6. Considering the submission that has come as also
the judgment of the Trial Court in which all the accused have
been found guilty of the charges and convicted, their period of
custody as also the criminal antecedent besides Santosh Kumar
Singh despite being an employee/staff of the Bank having
been found guilty in the present case, this Court does not deem
fit and proper to extend them the privilege of bail.
7. The prayer for bail of all the appellants is/are
rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link