The court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner after being arrested under 341/324/307/379/504/34IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.376920 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 91 Year 2020 Thana MOTIPUR District Muzaffarpur Md. Faiyaz aged approx 45 years Male Son of Late Md. Kalim Resident of Village Rampur Ugan P.S. Motipur District Muzaffarpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Advocate with Ms. Vaishnavi Singh Advocate Mr. Umesh Lal Verma APP For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Date : 20 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur learned counsel along with Ms. Vaishnavi Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Motipur PS Case No. 920 dated 24.03.2020 instituted under Sections 341 324 307 379 504 34 of the Indian Penal 4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of assault on the informant as also snatching of Rs. 10 000 from his pocket and specifically against the petitioner that he had a sword in his hand whereas the other accused are said to be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.376920 dt.20 07 2021 armed with iron rod 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is also counter case being Motipur PS Case No. 920 filed by the petitioner side alleging attack by the informant and others on his son and niece and also of outraging her modesty and the present case is a counter blast to the same. It was submitted that though the incident is said to have taken place on 24.03.2020 at around 6:00 AM but the FIR has been instituted at 11:30 PM on the said day which is an inordinate delay for which there is no explanation. Learned counsel submitted that it has come during investigation that goat of the informant used to eat the crops from the field of the petitioner due to which there were frequent altercation between the parties. Further it was submitted that the reason behind the incident is said to be Rs.1 00 000 taken by the petitioner from the informant which he was not returning but during investigation the contention has not been substantiated. It was submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent 6. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR itself it is clear that there was brutal assault on the informant and the same is corroborated by the injury report where four injuries have been found including stitch wound on the skull on the left side Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.376920 dt.20 07 2021 just about forehead caused by sharp cutting weapon and it is the petitioner only who is alleged to be carrying sword and there are other wounds also on the back of the skull as well as on other places. It was submitted that the counter case is a weak case and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and most importantly the petitioner being the main assailant in the sense that he only had a sword which is a sharp cutting weapon which is corroborated by the injury report as has been noted in the order of the Court below the allegations cannot be said to be 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner 8. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: In connection with Motipur PS Case No. 91 of 2020 on the 24th of March 2020. The petitioner was arrested under 341 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 307, “Attempt to murder.” Section 379, “Punishment for theft”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 20th of July 2021 in the case of Md. Faiyaz versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.37694 of 2020, Mr. Ajay Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceeding of the court was held through video conference. The following are the facts of the case: the petitioner and others were accused of assaulting the informant and snatching Rs.10,000 from his pocket. The petitioner was armed with a sword and the others accused were armed with an iron rod. The counsel for the petitioner held that there is a counter case filed by the petitioner against the informant, accusing the informant of assaulting the petitioner and his son and outraging the modesty of his niece and the only reason this present case was filed was to counterblast the same. The counsel submitted that, according to the FIR, the incident took place on the 24th of march 2020 around 6:00 AM and the Fir was filed only by 11:30 PM on the same day which is an inordinate delay, the counsel further held that during the investigation, we found there was a frequent altercation between the parties because the goat belonging to the informant used to eat crops from the field of the petitioner, another altercation is that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 1,00,000 from the informant and failed to return the money back, it was also submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the FIR clearly states a brutal assault on the informant and the injury report shows four injuries including stitches on the skull on the left side near the forehead which was caused by a sharp cutting weapon and there were other wounds on the back of the skull and another place all because the petitioner was carrying a sword. Regarding the counter case, it was submitted that it was a weak case and the allegations were all omnibus in nature, therefore, the petitioner is the main assailant and the allegations are not falsely implicated based on the evidence.