Patna High Court – Orders
Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 28 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3104 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2020 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar Son of Late Nandu Singh Resident of village -
Manjhauli, P.S. - Salimpur, Distt. - Patna
2. Ranjeet Singh, Son of Late Nandu Singh, Resident of village - Manjhauli,
P.S. - Salimpur, Distt. - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abha Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
8 28-02-2025
I.A. No.2 of 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and learned APP for the State
2. By way of present interlocutory application filed
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the appellant no. 1 namely, Vicky Singh @ Ajit
Kumar has renewed his prayer for bail and suspension of
sentence, which has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 05.04.2023 and order of sentence dated
16.05.2023 respectively passed by learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge-V, Barh (Patna) in Sessions Trial No.782 of
2021 arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No.320 of 2020,
whereby the appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023(8) dt.28-02-2025
2/5
307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) and Section 27
of the Arms Act and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under
Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of
Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. At the outset, it is submitted that the prayer of
petitioner/appellant/accused was rejected vide order dated
09.08.2024 as it was not pressed, leaving the entire merit
available for consideration.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner/appellant that the appellant was on bail during the
trial and he never misused it. It is submitted that the present
occurrence took place in the background of land dispute and
further as per deposition of PW-1/injured namely, Sulekha Devi,
it can be gathered safely that bullet was fired from her back
and, therefore, the identification of this appellant/accused
appears doubtful but, PW-1 named him specifically only for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023(8) dt.28-02-2025
3/5
reason that the appellant was in land dispute with the family of
PW-1/informant. It is submitted that the another story
regarding occurrence was also surfaced during the trial and
same was to force, PW-1 by this appellant for establishing illicit
relation. It is submitted that in view of two different motives
expressed behind the occurrence, the entire allegation appears
disputed.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the A.S.I.
Uday Kumar, who appears to be recorded the fardbeyan of PW-
1/informant, failed to examine by learned trial court and,
therefore, the conviction of appellant/accused on this score also
appears bad in the eyes of law.
6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
appellant/convict remains in custody for total period of two and
half years, where this appeal is of year2023 itself and same is
not likely to be taken up on Board for final hearing in near future
and on this score alone, the appellant/convict deserves bail. In
support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon legal
report of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Anurag
Baitha vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1987 Pat 274 (FB)] and
also on the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023(8) dt.28-02-2025
4/5
through Atul @ Ashutosh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[(2024) 3 SCC 663].
7. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail and
suspension of sentence as raised by appellant/convict submitted
that the injured/PW-1 namely, Sulekha Devi categorically
deposed before the trial court that this appellant opened fire
upon her hitting to her back. It is submitted that the firing was
repeated. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the manner
of assault, nature of weapons, etc. categorically suggest that
the appellant was under intention to cause death of the
injured/PW-1 and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly
convicted the appellant/convict for the offence under Section
307 of the IPC. It is submitted that injury of PW-1 appears in
full corroboration with medical evidence as deposed by PW-3
namely, Dr. Mridul Rai, who examined PW-1 medically. It is
submitted by learned APP that the balance of appeal is not in
favour of appellant/convict.
8. Learned APP while concluding argument submitted
that the motive behind the occurrence and the non-examination
of scriber of fardbeyan are such issues, which can be taken up
at the time of final hearing and not at this stage. In support of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023(8) dt.28-02-2025
5/5
his submission as advanced above, learned APP has relied upon
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr.
[(2023) 6 SCC 123].
9. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions
and by taking note of testimony of PW-1, who specifically
deposed against this appellant/petitioner as to open fire against
her, which was repeated and also in full corroboration with
injury report as deposed by PW-3, accordingly, the prayer for
bail of appellant no.1, namely, Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar stands
rejected herewith.
10. Accordingly, present interlocutory application
stands dismissed.
11. Considering the submission, as appellant/convict
remains in custody for a period of two and half years, he may
file a separate petition for consideration of early hearing of this
appeal, if so advised, which may considered by the appropriate
Bench.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link