Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27248 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Panchu Sah @ Bithu Sao son of Late Harihar Sah, 2. Arjun Sah son of Sri Panchu Sah Both are resident of village-Bangawan, P.S. Simutala, District Jamui. .... .... Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dudh Nath Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 6 12-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. Petitioners are accused for offences punishable under [STATUTE] . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegation against petitioner no.1 is that he had taken away some articles, whereas allegation against petitioner no.2 is that he threw the husband of the informant on the ground and assaulted him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they have been implicated falsely only in retaliation as the wife of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27248 of 2012 (6) dt.12-12-2012 - 2 - petitioner no.1 had earlier filed a complaint case against the husband of the informant of the instant case and others. He also avers that instant occurrence is sequel of land dispute as one branch of original land holder sold house with land to petitioners by registered sale deed through their attorney, whereas the other branch subsequently sold land to the informant and on that basis the informant was trying to capture the house which was sold to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that earlier they had filed a petition for bail bearing Cr. Misc. No.21720 of 2008 in which a wrong affidavit had been sworn by the uncle of the wife of petitioner no.2 that petitioners had no criminal antecedents merely because the said executant of the affidavit had no knowledge about any criminal case pending against the petitioners. However the said Cr. Misc. No.21720 of 2008 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2008 (Annexure-1) and petitioners were directed to be released holding that they had no criminal antecedents. 6. It transpires that subsequently the informant of the instant case bearing Simultala P.S.Case No.12 of 2008 namely Maya Gupta filed Cr.Misc. No.33908 of 2011 for cancellation of bail of the petitioners granted vide aforesaid order dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27248 of 2012 (6) dt.12-12-2012 - 3 - 04.06.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21720 of 2008 on the ground that it had been obtained by making false statement on affidavit that the said accused had no criminal antecedents due to which the Court was misled. The said ground found to be proved Cr.Misc. No.33908 of 2011 was allowed and order dated 04.06.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21720 of 2008 was recalled and the bail granted to these petitioners were cancelled and they were directed to surrender in the Court below within 15 days failing which the Court below was directed to take coercive action for their arrest. It transpires that the petitioners did not surrender in the Court below within 15 days rather they surrendered a bit late on 02.07.2012 in the Court below and since then they are in custody for about 5 ½ months. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some cases had been lodged against the petitioners, out of which Jhanjha P.S. Case No.285 of 2009 was lodged on the basis of complaint by one Muso Yadav due to land dispute which was forwarded by the Court below under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in that case police after investigation found the allegation false and submitted final report being Final Report No.296 of 2009 on 30.12.2009 and requested to initiate the proceeding under [STATUTE] against the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27248 of 2012 (6) dt.12-12-2012 - 4 - informant. The said final form was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.12.2011 and a separate case was lodged against the informant bearing Tr. No.3702 of 2011 arising out of Complaint case No.652C2 of 2011. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Complaint Case No.562C of 2010, Complaint Case No.155 of 2012, Complaint Case No.358C of 2010 and Complaint Case No.774C of 2011 were instituted by the husband of the instant informant, namely Umesh Prasad Gupta himself or through his employees. All these cases have been filed in Courts at Patna, whereas petitioners are residents of Jamui. 9. It is also stated that Chakai P.S. Case No.42 of 1996 was filed by one Bhata Yadav for offences punishable under [STATUTE] due to land dispute because petitioners had purchased the house and land from the registered owner and other persons related to the owner had filed the case challenging the deed to be forged and in that case petitioner no.1 was acquitted vide judgment dated 15.04.2002. 10. Similarly Simulata P. S. Case No.14 of 1998 was filed against petitioner no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 327 and other minor offences of the Indian Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27248 of 2012 (6) dt.12-12-2012 - 5 - Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act due to political election dispute and the said case also resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated 05.06.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.105 of 2006. 11. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bail was granted to the petitioners vide order dated 04.06.2008 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr. Misc. No.21720 of 2008 which clearly showed that at the relevant time only one case was pending against petitioner no.1 namely Simulata P. S. Ca

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.