In Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed a 3-page long order dated August 18 2025. The order reads: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the fact that the petitioner was not present at the time of commission of crime, however, has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC and has already undergone incarceration for almost four years, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the petitioner pending disposal of appeal before the High Court."
It added: "Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court/Additional District & Sessions Judge XXIV, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No.81 of 2018 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No.704 of 2017. The Special Leave Petition and pending application(s) are disposed of accordingly."
In Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ashok Kumar Pandey had passed a 7-page long order dated November 11, 2024, wherein it concluded:""this Court is of the opinion that what has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the informant about the pendency of the trial despite the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 3858-3859 of 2020 is required to be brought to the notice of the Administrative Committee of this Court for some immediate action to insure that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is duly complied with and the reason for non-
compliance be also sought for from all concerned. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of Patna Judgeship for information and further action." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.
The order was upon hearing the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal. The sole appellant in this case was convicted vide judgment dated March 28, 2022 and sentenced vide order dated April 1, 2022 by Additional District Judge, XXIV, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2018 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 704 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 302/34 and 326/34 IPC. He was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 302/34 and 326/34 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, he had to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged in the FIR that on September 15, 2017 at about 05:45 PM, the informant along with the deceased, namely, Nirbhay Kumar Singh were standing near the main gate of cinema hall and the deceased was standing at some distance. The informant heard the sound of gun
shots and when he turned, he saw that his brother was being surrounded by three persons lashed with weapon. The informant saw that his brother fell on the road. When the informant reached near his brother, he saw his brother soaked in blood lying on the ground and the accused persons fled towards the north direction towards Kerosene Oil depot of one Raj Kumar Singh. The appellant submitted that the appellant was not named in the first information report and it would appear from the materials on the record that his name transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused. He was said to be one of the persons who had participated in hatching conspiracy to kill Nirbhay Singh who was the representative of the local business people in the market and he was allegedly killed for raising a protest against the demand of ‘rangdari’. In the course of trial, though CCTV footage of certain establishments of the locality were brought on record and the prosecution claimed to have identified the shooter, however, there was no cogent material against the appellant to establish that he was one of the conspirators. The counsel for the informant and Satya Narayan Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had jointly opposed the prayer of the appellant. They submitted that in case of a co-convict, namely, Pappu Singh (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 344 of 2022) whose case would stand on similar footing with the appellant, the Court had earlier rejected his prayer after taking a view upon his criminal antecedents as well as the observations
of the Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & An in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1331-1332 of 2023. It was submitted that the co-convict Pappu Singh had taken up the matter before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 12231 of 2023 which was dismissed after the appellant sought permission to withdraw the petition. A copy of the order dated October 13, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 12231 of 2023 had placed before the High Court. It was submitted that the appellant had got two criminal antecedents.
The counsel also submitted that about twenty days prior to the occurrence, a gang of criminals had performed a ‘gunda march’ to terrorize the traders and public of Bihta to collect ‘rangdari’ tax which was being protested by the deceased being the President of Bihta Traders’ Association. It was because of this
protest he was killed and this appellant had participated in this conspiracy. The case of this appellant was distinguishable from that of Pappu Singh. It was submitted that Pappu Singh had seven criminal antecedents and even his mobile was put on surveillance and the technical evidence with regard to the tower location of the mobile number of Pappu Singh has been proved in evidence whereas the mobile of this appellant was not put on surveillance and no technical data in this regard has been brought on the record by the prosecution. As regard the custody, it was submitted that the appellant was absconding for a brief period but he had surrendered on March 7, 2018 whereafter after about ten months, he was granted bail and presently, he is in custody since March 28, 2022. The informant pointed out that in this case, three accused persons who were facing trial absconded on the date of judgment. The case of one of the accused was separated on the ground that he was a juvenile, till date, the trial has not been concluded in the learned
Children’s Court which would be evident from the observations of the learned trial court in the impugned judgment itself.
The counsel pointed out that the trial had not yet been concluded despite the direction of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 3858-3859 of 2020.
Justice Prasad noted that for purpose of consideration of the prayer for bail of the appellant, "we have prima-facie gone through the evidences on the record. At this stage, we find that the case of Pappu Singh and that of this appellant are similarly situated. Learned counsel for the appellant has though made efforts to take us through a threadbare discussion into the evidences on the record in order to distinguish the case of the appellant from that of Pappu Singh but we are of the considered opinion that this is not the stage where we may go into such threadbare discussion. 13. This Court while rejecting the prayer for bail of Pappu Singh has observed that from the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court, it cannot be concluded at this stage that this appellant has fair chance of acquittal. The same view is taken by this Court in this case as well. 14. We are not inclined to grant suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail. The prayer is refused. 15. Let this appeal be tagged with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 344 of 2022. If the appellant is so advised, he may file an application seeking early hearing of the appeal." The case was filed in the High Court on May 20, 2022 and registered on June 1, 2022.
Earlier, in Pappu Singh vs. The of Bihar (2023) Cr. DB No. 344 of 2022, High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Nawneet Kumar Pandey passed a 4-page long order dated August 28, 2023. It reads:"After having perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court as well as the lower court’s records, it cannot be concluded, at this stage, that the appellant has fair chance of acquittal. The submissions, which have been made on behalf of the appellant, will have to be looked into at the time of final hearing of the appeal." The Justice authored the order. The order made a reference to the decision rendered on May 2, 2023 in Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1331-1332 of 2023 by the Supreme Court. The relevant excerpts read:“...to put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach...” Justice Singh observed:'Considering the appellant’s criminal antecedent, as noted above, and the observations made by the Supreme Court, reproduced hereinabove, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer for suspension of sentence at this stage. We do not find any palpable legal infirmity requiring this Court to exercise power under Section 389(1) of the CrPC. 8. Appellant's prayer for suspension of the sentence is accordingly rejected. 9. The appellant shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer of suspension of sentence after one year, if, in the meanwhile, the appeal is not taken up for final hearing, despite steps having been taken to expedite the hearing of the appeal.' Prior to this, on August 10, 2023, the Additional Public Prosecutor had given a written objection which was filed on behalf of the State in terms of the first proviso to Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On February 6, 2023, the Court had allowed the State to file written objection in terms of the first proviso to Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
No comments:
Post a Comment