Patna High Court – Orders
Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 December, 2024
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.708 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Singh son of Niteshwar Singh @
Niteshwar Prasad Singh Village- Jahangirpur PS-Gaighat Distt- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
6 20-12-2024
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Records have been placed before this Court to
consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his
sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment
dated 29.04.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 15.05.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 131/2020 arising out of
Singhwara P.S. Case No. 02/2020 for the offences punishable
under Section 364(A) of Indian Penal Code (In short ‘IPC‘). He
has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2024(6) dt.20-12-2024
2/5
a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 364A of the IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three years
simple imprisonment. Further, he has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-
under Section 328 of the IPC and in default of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other
Sections of IPC are not being mentioned.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that one Vishnu Dev
Bharti lodged a written application before the Officer-in-Charge
of Singhwara Police Station on 06.01.2020 alleging therein that
his younger son, namely, Raman Kumar Thakur @ Chunna on
06.01.2020 as per the daily routine proceeded for his residence at
Kadirabad near Naka No.2 from his shop situated at Singhwara at
about 5.00 P.M. by motorcycle but he could not reach his home.
It is further alleged that he had two mobile phones but the same
was switched off. The informant enquired about his son from all
of his relations but the efforts went in vain. After that, he was
thinking that his son was kidnapped by unknown persons and
thereafter requested the police to take action. On the basis of the
aforesaid written application, Singhwara P.S. Case No. 02 of
2020 dated 06.01.2020 under Section 364(A) of the IPC was
registered.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2024(6) dt.20-12-2024
3/5
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits
that in this case, the victim was recovered after about three
months whereafter his statement was recorded by police under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he was also produced before the learned
Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
In both of his statements, the victim has not named this appellant
either as a person who actively participated in his abduction or at
subsequent stage any role has been played by him.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that later on, the
appellant was arrested alleging that he was working as a liner in
this case on the basis of the confessional statements of the co-
accused. The victim has stated to the extent that this appellant
was not visiting him at the place where he was confined after
abduction, therefore, prima facie, the materials which
immediately came after recovery of the victim do not indicate the
involvement of this appellant. He has no criminal antecedent and
has remained in incarceration for about two years in connection
with the present case.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the
order dated 13.11.2024 passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal DB
No. 695 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 781 of 2024 (Bablu Jha
vs. State of Bihar and Nawal Kishore Sahni vs. State of Bihar
respectively) to submit that in almost similar circumstance where
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2024(6) dt.20-12-2024
4/5
the name of the two appellants had not transpired in the statement
of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., they had no criminal
antecedent and their names were taken by the victim only in
course of trial, they have been granted privilege of bail.
8. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has though opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant but at the same time does
not controvert the submission on behalf of the appellant that so
far as this appellant is concerned, he was not named by the victim
in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and then in his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also not controverted
that the appellant has no criminal antecedent.
9. Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove
and the materials which we have prima facie gone into, noticing
that the name of the appellant has come in this case on the basis
of confessional statements of the co-accused, the victim has not
named him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C. and the appellant has remained in incarceration for about
two years in connection with the present case whereas this appeal
is not likely to be heard in near future, his case is also standing at
almost similar footing with the co-convicts who have been
granted privilege of bail by this Court, this Court directs
suspension of sentence and release the appellant on bail during
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2024(6) dt.20-12-2024
5/5
pendency of the appeal. We order accordingly.
10. Let the sentence of the appellant above-named be
suspended and he be released on bail, during pendency of the
appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 131/2020 arising out of
Singhwara P.S. Case No. 02/2020.
11. Fine, if any, imposed as part of sentence shall
remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.
12. It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative for the purpose of
suspension of sentence and bail only which would not cause
prejudice to the either parties.
13. List this appeal for hearing on it’s turn.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
Shubham/-
U T