Kalu Kumar Ray @ Babalu Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.635 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-520 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Kalu Kumar Ray @ Babalu Ray, S/o Sri Vijay Kumar Ray, R/o villageKutubpur, P.S. - Doriganj, Distt. - Chhapara ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2024 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit as to correct para-8 of the bail petition that the revisionist was not on bail during the trial.
2. Let the same be corrected and read, accordingly.
3. This application has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 as passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby and whereunder learned court has rejected the prayer of bail of the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2024 arising out of the judgment dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara in connection with G.R. Case No. 2904 of 2023, arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No. 520 of 2023 by which learned Magistrate has convicted the appellant under
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.635 of 2024(6) dt.04-10-2024 2/3 Section 25(1-b)a/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for one month, further learned trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. Learned trial court further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel that merely on the ground as the prayer of bail of the petitioner was declined by the court concerned during the trial, therefore, his prayer of bail under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the appellate court. It is submitted that the petitioner remains in custody for more than half of his sentence, where appeal is still pending, accordingly, revisionist, in view of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [(2022) 10 SCC 51] and also Atul alias Ashutosh vs. State of M.P. [(2024) 3 SCC 663], deserves bail, during the pendency of appeal
5. Considering aforesaid submission and the custody period of revisionist/petitioner, who remains in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.635 of 2024(6) dt.04-10-2024 3/3 custody for about 14 months against the sentence of two years, accordingly, the petitioner/revisionist, above named, is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of aforesaid appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara/concerned court, in G.R. Case No. 2904 of 2023, arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No. 520 of 2023.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/- U T