Patna High Court – Orders
Binod Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2115 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2004 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
BINOD SAH, S/O RAMESHWAR SAH, Resident of Tartole Thelemahaur,
P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
8 04-04-2025
I.A. No. 03 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The present matter was taken on board for
considering the prayer of bail and suspension of sentence of above
named petitioner/appellant/convict during pendency of appeal
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.) as raised through present petition, which filed in present
appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2020,
rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI, Araria in
Sessions Trial No. 271/2006 arising out of Forbesganj P.S. Case
No. 299/2004 by which the learned trial court has convicted the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2115 of 2021(8) dt.04-04-2025
2/7
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)
a/26/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years for the offences under Section 25(1-
B)a of the Arms Act and fine of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty
thousand) and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for eight years for the offence punishable under
Section 26(II) of the Arms Act and fine of Rs. 100,000/-(Rupees
one lacs). Both sentences ordered to run concurrently.
3. The conviction of appellant was secured by the
learned trial court as he found guilty to have in possession of one
country made pistol alongwith one live cartridge.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that on earlier occasion, the prayer of bail and
suspension of sentence was rejected by this Court vide its order
dated 10.01.2022. In this context, it is further submitted that the
rejection of prayer of bail and suspension of sentence was merely
on the score that appellant/petitioner absconded on the date of
judgment. It is submitted that said order was challenged before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also declined through
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5076/2022 vide order dated
06.06.2022, considering that petitioner was absconder. It is
pointed out that the prayer of bail and suspension of sentence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2115 of 2021(8) dt.04-04-2025
3/7
this appellant was never considered on merit and mere due to
technical reasons that he was not present on the date of judgment
and, thereafter, declared absconder by learned trial court, though
he surrendered on 19.01.2021. It is submitted by learned counsel
that the conviction of appellant was secured without proving of
seizure list. In support of his submission, it is pointed out that out
of two seizure list witnesses, one namely, Gunjan Bharti was not
examined during the trial, whereas another seizure list witness,
namely, Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, who examined before the learned
trial court as PW-6, categorically stated during the trial that
nothing was recovered from accused/petitioner before him and
thus disputed the entire seizure list and recovery. It is submitted
that this matter was completely overlooked by learned trial court
while recording the judgment of conviction.
5. It is submitted that with aforesaid evidence,
accused/petitioner/appellant remains in custody for about more
than five years against fixed term sentence of eight years. It is
submitted that in view of Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 663, this petitioner deserves
bail.
6. It is submitted that a second petition i.e. I.A. No. 2 of
2023 was also preferred by this appellant before this Court but
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2115 of 2021(8) dt.04-04-2025
4/7
same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 08.12.2023 but in view
of custody period, the appellant was given liberty to file petition for
early hearing, if so advised.
7. At present, this Court is not dealing with the business
of Criminal Appeal (SJ). The aforesaid matter was listed before
this Court as “Tied-Up” matter as I.A. No. 2 of 2023 was disposed
of by this Court. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the court
in business of hearing appeal is not hearing the appeal of year
2021 for the present and, therefore, his prayer for early hearing
was not accepted as the learned co-ordinate Bench is dealing with
hearing matter of year 2019.
8. It is submitted that by time, the matter would be
taken up on board, the appellant/petitioner may cover its entire
sentence of eight years, which would only amount to denial of his
right to appeal against conviction as he already remains in custody
for about five years and six months.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce the rejection order
dated 10.01.2022 of this Court, which reads as under:-
“Heard both the parties through video
conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the statement of the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant has wrongly been
shown as absconder by the Court as he had
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2115 of 2021(8) dt.04-04-2025
5/7already surrendered before the trial court. The
appellant was under wrong impression that he has
been acquitted, he left the Court. Later on, he
presented himself before the Court but found the
court having been closed for x-mas holidays. I
have considered the submission.
Taking into consideration the order
passed by the Court showing the appellant
absconder and later on, having surrendered, I am
not inclined to allow the suspense suspension
application of the appellant at this stage and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce the order dated
08.12.2023 of this Court, which reads as under:-
” I.A. No. 02 of 2023
Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties.
2. After short argument, it is submitted
by learned counsel that he be permitted to withdraw
I.A. No. 02 of 2023, which is regarding prayer of
bail and suspension of sentence under Section
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
“Cr.P.C.”).
3. Request allowed.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 of 2023
stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2115 of 2021
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that appellant is in custody since
two years and eleven months against sentence of
eight years.
6. Accordingly, he may file petition
for early hearing, if so advised.”
10. It would be apposite to reproduce the order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2115 of 2021(8) dt.04-04-2025
6/7“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).5076/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 10-01-2022 in CRLA(SJ) No. 2115/2021
passed by the High Court of Judicature At Patna)
BINOD SAH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondent(s)(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.77927/2022-
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date: 06-06-2022 This petition was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
(VACATION BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
ORDER
Considering the fact that even as observed by the
learned trial court, the petitioner absconded from
the Judicial Custody immediately upon hearing the
order of conviction passed by the trial court, the
High Court has rightly refused to release the
petitioner on bail during the pendency of the
appeal before the High Court.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if
any, is/are disposed of.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2115 of 2021(8) dt.04-04-2025
7/7
11. In view of above, without making any comment on
merit as submitted above, as the prayer of bail and suspension of
sentence of petitioner/appellant already rejected by Hon’ble
Supreme Court as petitioner/accused/appellant was absconder, as
discussed above, the prayer of suspension of sentence and bail of
appellant/petitioners stands rejected.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No. 03 of 2024 stands also
rejected.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2115 of 2021
1. Office is directed to list this matter before appropriate
Bench positively within two weeks.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link