The petitioners were released on bail after being apprehended under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, and 506IPC as they acted in self-defence: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.195021 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 169 Year 2020 Thana DAUDPUR District Saran 1. Algu Mian @ Hanif Mian @ Hanif aged about 64 years Male Son of Late 2. Khendar Mian aged about 65 years Male Son of Late Rahman Mian 3. Malkhan Miya @ Malkhan Mian aged about 34 years Male Son of 4. Afroj Mian @ Afroj Hussain @ Afroj Miya aged about 28 years Male Son of Islam Mian Tahir Mian aged about 42 years Male Son of Chand Mian 6. Asgar Mian @ Asgar Ali aged about 24 years Male Son of Tahir Mian All above resident of Village Saryugpar Police Station Daudpur District Saran at Chapra The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Radha Mohan Singh Advocate Ms. Rina Sinha APP Date : 02 08 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Rina Sinha learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195021 dt.02 08 2021 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Daudpur PS Case No.1620 dated 18.07.2020 instituted under Sections 147 149 323 324 307 379 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with others were armed variously and had assaulted the informant side the specific allegation being of assault on head and then general and omnibus against all accused 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the same incident there is also a case filed on behalf of the petitioners being Daudpur PS Case No. 1620 which is earlier in time and they have also sustained injuries. Further it was submitted that the injury reports of the informant and others discloses that they were simple in nature except for injury no. 1 on Babunand Singh which was found to be grievous and with regard to assault on Babunand Singh it is general and omnibus against all the accused. It was further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent Learned counsel submitted that in the counter case the place of occurrence is the house of the accused whereas in the present case it has been said that it was the house of co villager Santlal Mahto. It was submitted that in the investigation such allegation has been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195021 dt.02 08 2021 proved to be false as the Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence as the house of two of the accused in the present case which clearly indicates that the present informant had come to the house of the accused and they were wanting ten thousand rupees which was earlier decided by the Panches against the petitioners’ side. Thus it was submitted that the informant side was the aggressor. Moreover it was submitted that both sides had indulged in a free fight as has come during investigation both in the present case as well as Daudpur PS Case No. 1620. Learned counsel submitted that as per the FIR though there is specific allegation of assault by sword by the petitioners no. 1 and 2 on the head of the informant but the injury caused is simple whereas on Babunand Singh two injuries have been found on the head one injury is simple and one injury is grievous but the reason for classifying the injury as ‘grievous’ is that from the wound blood was still flowing. It was submitted that no fracture or anything else of the skull has been found. It was submitted that even the allegation of assault on Babunand Singh is said to be by all 10 accused but without there being any specific allegation against anyone and most importantly the injury on the head of the informant has been found to be caused by hard blunt substance. It was further Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195021 dt.02 08 2021 submitted that four persons have also sustained injury on the side of the informant as would be clear from Daudpur PS Case No. 1620. Learned counsel submitted that the place of occurrence as has been found by the Investigating Officer in the present case being the house of two of the accused in the present case it is clear that the original panchayat was not being held as it could not have been at the house of one of the accused and thus the informant side having come to the house of the accused proved that they had come prepared for a fight as they were armed and thus it is clear that already panchayati was held earlier and a decision was taken but the way the informant side wanted to enforce the decision has resulted in such fight between both the sides 6. Learned APP from the case diary of both Daudpur PS Case No. 1620 and the present case i.e. Daudpur PS Case No. 1620 submitted that in the present case also though the allegation is that the place of occurrence was the house of co villager Santlal Mahto but the Investigating Officer has found it to be the house of two of the accused in the present case and in Daudpur PS Case No. 168 of 2020 the place of occurrence is the house of the accused of the present case. It was further submitted that in both the cases it is obvious that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195021 dt.02 08 2021 dispute arose out of panchayati 7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that there is allegation of assault by sword and knife on the head of the informant. However it was not controverted that the injury report discloses simple injury caused by hard blunt substance and further that with regard to Babunand Singh though the allegation is that 10 persons had assaulted him but as per the injury report itself one wound has been described as grievous only on the ground that blood was still flowing from it whereas the other wound has been found to be simple in nature 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that the place of occurrence being the house of the accused in the present case indicates that the informant side had come to that place and there being a counter case earlier in time to the present case for the same incident is a pointer that the attack from the side of the petitioners may have been spontaneous and more as a matter of defence and further the injury on both the sides being simple in nature except for that on Babunand Singh where one injury has been found to be grievous that too only for the reason that when the doctor had examined him blood was still flowing from that wound the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195021 dt.02 08 2021 Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail to the 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners 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 concerned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Saran at Chapra in Daudpur PS Case No 169 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non cooperation shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.195021 dt.02 08 2021 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: This is in connection with Daudpur PS Case No.169 of 2020 dated 18.07.2020. The petitioners were arrested under section 147IPC, “Punishment for rioting”, section 149 “ Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense commit­ted in the prosecution of a common object”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, 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” and section  506 IPC, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of August 2021 in the case of Algu Mian @ Hanif Mian and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.19508 of 2021, Mr. Radha Mohan Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Rina represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, The petitioners along with others were accused of being armed variously and had assaulted the informant side, the assault was on the head and the rest were general and omnibus. The counsel for the petitioner held that according to the injury reports it was disclosed that the informants and others had simple injuries except for injury no.1 on Babunand Singh was held to be grievous and the rest was considered general. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent. The counsel held that there is the counter case made by the petitioners against the informant in Daudpur PS Case No. 168 of 2020 which states that even the petitioner sustained injuries, the venue of the crime was held to be at the house of the accused whereas at this present case the venue was at the house of another co-villager which proves the falsity because it was transpired after investigation the officer held that the place of occurrence was at the house of the accused even at the present case, which clearly indicates the informants approached the house of the accused wanting ten thousand rupees which were already decided in the favour of the petitioners by the authorities. Proving the informant to be the aggressor. In both the mentioned cases there was a free-fight. There is no fracture or anything regarding the skull that has been found which shows that it was caused by a hard blunt substance. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that in both the cases even though the place of occurrence was filed to be at the co-villager house it was not controverted that after investigation the place of occurrence was actually the house of the accused and the dispute arose due to decision made by the Panchayati. According to the counsel for the informant, it was held that petitioners were guilty of assault by using a sword and knife on the head of the informant. However, it is not controverted that the injury was simple in nature according to the reports caused by a hard blunt substance. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that attack from the side of the petitioners may have been spontaneous and more as a matter of defense and therefore the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the  Judicial Magistrate under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behaviour of the petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution.” The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.  It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.” Click here to read the judgment