Bail denied in the matter of Brutal Assault and Hanging till Death: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEALNo 17021 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 261 Year 2020 Thana KHAJANCHI HAT District Purnia MD RAJU SON OF LATE NIZAM R O NEW SIPAHI TOLA MARANGA ROAD MATA CHAUK P.S. K. HAT DISTRICT PURNEA The State of Bihar ... Appellant s ... Respondent s For the Appellant s For the S t a t e For the I n f o r m a n t CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD Mr Raj Kumar Advocate Ms Usha Kumari I Special PP Mr Amit Kumar Anand Advocate Date : 20 09 2021 This case has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing 2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutorappearing for the State of 3 The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 14 Aof Scheduled Castes and Scheduled TribesAct 1989against the refusal of his prayer for regular bail vide order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I cum Patna High Court CR. APPNo.17021 dt.20 09 2021 Special Judge SC ST Act Purnea in a case registered under Sections 147 148 149 341 323 302 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(V) of SC ST Act in connection with Special Case No 72 of 2020 CIS No 72 of 2020 arising out of K Hat Police StationCase No 2620. 4 The prosecution case is that for making a demand in respect of some dues from the accused persons informant’s son has brutally been assaulted in his shop and killed by 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that several persons have been implicated by general and omnibus allegation. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. The informant’s version is not as an eye witness. There are no other injuries in the post mortem report except strangulation 6 Learned counsel for the informant and learned Special PP have submitted that in paragraph 74 of case diary independent witness has stated regarding witnessing the assault perpetrated by all these accused persons. Similarly situated co accused Md Chand had moved this Court for grant of bail in Cr AppealNo 15621. The same has been rejected Patna High Court CR. APPNo.17021 dt.20 09 2021 7 In my opinion in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report and submission of parties a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 does not require interference by this Court which is accordingly affirmed 8 This appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC ST Act Purnea in connection with SpecialCase No 720 CIS No 720 arising out of K Hat PS Case No 2620 is affirmed 9 Prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected for Madhuresh Prasad J NAFR NA

Summary: The accused was arrested for brutally assaulting and hanging the informant’s son to death. In the case, there was a sole witness who confirmed the crime. In light of all facts and circumstances, the court denied the application for bail to the accused. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Madhuresh Prasad in the matter of MD Raju v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (SJ) No 1703 of 2021].                        The Facts of the case were that the appeal was filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the refusal of his prayer for regular bail passed by Additional Sessions Judge I in the case registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code. The informant’s son was brutally assaulted in his shop and killed by hanging when he asked to pay off the dues from the accused person. 
The Appellant submitted that several persons have been implicated by the general and omnibus allegation. The appellant had no criminal antecedent. The informant’s version was not as an eyewitness. There were no other injuries in the post mortem report except strangulation. The independent witness had stated regarding witnessing the assault perpetrated by the accused.

Other petitioner in the same matter were not granted bail and their plea was dismissed by the Court. The Court was inclined to give the similar decision in the current matter as well. The Court relied on the sole witness and post mortem report, and in the light of the facts and circumstances presented by both the sides the Court decided the matter.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,”… in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 does not require interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, affirmed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea in connection with Special (SC/ST) Case No 72 of 2020/CIS No 72 of 2020 arising out of K Hat PS Case No 261 of 2020 is affirmed.” The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected for the case.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgement Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Appellant submitted that several persons have been implicated by the general and omnibus allegation. The appellant had no criminal antecedent. The informant’s version was not as an eyewitness. There were no other injuries in the post mortem report except strangulation. The independent witness had stated regarding witnessing the assault perpetrated by the accused. 
Other petitioner in the same matter were not granted bail and their plea was dismissed by the Court. The Court was inclined to give the similar decision in the current matter as well. The Court relied on the sole witness and post mortem report, and in the light of the facts and circumstances presented by both the sides the Court decided the matter.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,”… in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 does not require interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, affirmed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea in connection with Special (SC/ST) Case No 72 of 2020/CIS No 72 of 2020 arising out of K Hat PS Case No 261 of 2020 is affirmed.” The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected for the case.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgement Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 Other petitioner in the same matter were not granted bail and their plea was dismissed by the Court. The Court was inclined to give the similar decision in the current matter as well. The Court relied on the sole witness and post mortem report, and in the light of the facts and circumstances presented by both the sides the Court decided the matter. 
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,”… in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 does not require interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, affirmed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea in connection with Special (SC/ST) Case No 72 of 2020/CIS No 72 of 2020 arising out of K Hat PS Case No 261 of 2020 is affirmed.” The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected for the case.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgement Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,”… in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 does not require interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, affirmed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea in connection with Special (SC/ST) Case No 72 of 2020/CIS No 72 of 2020 arising out of K Hat PS Case No 261 of 2020 is affirmed.” The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected for the case.