Bail denied to the Petitioner for egregiously harming 2 people: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 355620 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 113 Year 2020 Thana SANDESH District Bhojpur 1. Kriya Ram @ Bablu Ram @ Bablu Kumar age 19 years Male Son of Awadhesh Ram. Sudhir Ram age 20 years Son of Late Deo Kumar Ram. 3. Kamlesh Ram age 44 years Son of Late Raj Kumar Ram. Jugesh Ram age 36 years Son of Late Raj Kumar Ram. Lalan Ram age 38 years Son of Late Deo Kumar Ram. Pappu Ram age 22 years Son of Shiv Kumar All are resident of Village Nasratpur PS Sandesh District Bhojpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Manoj Kumar Advocate For the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355620 dt.10 08 2021 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sandesh PS Case No. 1120 dated 19.04.2020 instituted under Sections 147 149 447 448 341 323 324 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had assaulted the informant and her relatives causing injuries 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are agnates and there was fight between them for which there is also a counter case. It was submitted that even as per the allegation the same are general and omnibus in nature except against petitioner no. 5 who is said to have assaulted along with others not petitioners herein with iron rod on the head of Rajendra Ram. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent and even in the FIR no reason has been mentioned as to why the occurrence took place 6. Learned APP submitted that the injury report shows two grievous injuries on the injured person. However it was not controverted that only against petitioner no. 5 Lalan Ram it is specific that he along with some other co accused had assaulted by iron rod on the head and against the other petitioners the allegations are general and omnibus Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355620 dt.10 08 2021 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today petitioner no. 1 namely Kriya Ram @ Bablu Ram @ Bablu Kumar petitioner no. 2 namely Sudhir Ram petitioner no. 3 namely Kamlesh Ram petitioner no. 4 namely Jugesh Ram and petitioner no. 6 namely Pappu Ram be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Class Judicial Magistrate or concern Court Bhojpur at Ara in Sandesh PS Case No. 113 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the said petitioners that the said petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the said petitioners andthat the said petitioners shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds 8. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the said Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355620 dt.10 08 2021 petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioners 9. The prayer for pre arrest bail of petitioner no. 5 namely Lalan Ram stands rejected. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The Petitioners were asserted to terribly hurt the source and his family members. The Petitioners were allowed bail aside from Petitioner 5 who was principally blamed for harming the most. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Kriya Ram and others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35560 of 2020]. The facts of the case were that the solicitor was captured capture regarding the Case, founded under Sections 147, 149, 447, 448, 341, 323, 324, 325, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was affirmed that the applicants had attacked the source and made genuine wounds the family members of the witness. Learned insight for the applicants presented that the gatherings are agnates and there was a battle between them for which there is additionally a counter case. It was presented that even according to the claim, the equivalent are general and omnibus in nature besides against applicant no. 5, who is said to have attacked, alongside others, not solicitors in this, with an iron bar on the head of Rajendra Ram. Learned guidance presented that the candidates have no other criminal precursor and surprisingly in the FIR, no explanation has been referenced regarding the reason why the event occurred. The Additional Public Prosecutor fought that there were 2 heinous injury reports. Be that as it may, it wasn’t contested a lot. However, it was explicit that solicitor 5 alongside some co-charged attacked by the iron pole on the head and claims are general and omnibus. The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, petitioner no. 1, namely, Kriya Ram @ Bablu Ram @ Bablu Kumar; petitioner no. 2, namely, Sudhir Ram; petitioner no. 3, namely, Kamlesh Ram; petitioner no. 4, namely, Jugesh Ram and petitioner no. 6, namely, Pappu Ram, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount…” The Petition of Petitioner 5 stood rejected by the Court. The Petitioner stood disposed of on the mentioned terms.