Supreme Court grants bail to a murder convict from Gaya

In Ravindra Prasad @ Panchu Singh @ Ravindra Singh vs.State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of  Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 3-page long order dated September 15, 2025. The order concluded: ''Considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the matter is of the year 2024 and would likely take some time to conclude, we are of the opinion that a case for bail is made out by the appellant and therefore, the prayer for bail is allowed. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.'' The appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant was under incarceration for more than 8 years. The appellant is charged and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 

The case arose out of 45-page long judgment dated May 17, 2024 passed by the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Jitendra Kumar wherein, the High Court had altered the conviction of appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 496 of 2017, namely, Ravindra Prasad @ Panchu Singh @ Ravindra Singh ''from Sections 302/34 IPC to one under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.''   

The appeals was preferred before the High Court for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 18, 2017 and February 27, 2017 respectively passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 522 of 2008/44 of 2016 which arose out of Atri P.S. Case No. 55 of 2004 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the judgment under appeal, the trial court had convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court referred to judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. reported In (1994) 5 SCC 188; Nandlal Singh & Others vs. State of Chattisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 470 on the point of delay in lodging of FIR and inconsistency between oral and medical evidence and the effect of examination of only interested witnesses.

There was reference made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (Cr. Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2023) with regard presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition and unless it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that the injured
witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh and Anr vs. State of U.P. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 673 was referred to submit that law recognises the principle of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence. In Krishnan and Anr. vs. State of Kerala reported in (1996) 10 SCC 508 it has been observed that an overt act is not a requirement of law for Section 34 IPC to operate but prosecution  must establish that the person concerned share the common intention. The  counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surendra Chauhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2000) 4 SCC 110 which talks of the application of Section 34 IPC.