The CCTV footage indicates that the petitioner had a role, which was not proper and rather against the law.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 372120 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 47 Year 2019 Thana BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District Dhananjay Yadav aged about 35 years Gender Male Son of Sikendra Yadav Resident of Village Raipura PS Goradih District Bhagalpur The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha Advocate Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Let the same be done 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Kotwali PS Case No. 47 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019 instituted under Sections 427 353 384 of the Indian Penal Code Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372120 dt.04 09 2021 5. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of creating nuisance in the office of the Zila Parishad on 15.01.2019 when a meeting for consideration of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the President was being conducted 6. On 13.07.2021 learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the allegation is false as his wife is a Zila Parishad Member and he had taken her to the Centre for participating in the Special Meeting but the meeting could not proceed and the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Vice President of the Zila Parishad Bhagalpur in the recorded minutes dated 15.01.2019 had given in detail the reason why the meeting could not proceed which was basically due to lack of quorum. It was submitted that in the said minutes there is absolutely no mentioning of any violence or incident as is alleged in the FIR which has been lodged by the Block Development Officer Goradih cum Deputed Magistrate Bhagalpur of the said Special Meeting. It was contended that even the contention that from the CCTV footage as the FIR is against unknown the petitioner has been identified and thus made accused the same is also incorrect as there is no footage with regard to the petitioner committing any overt act much less any violent act so as to be made an accused in the case It was submitted that the President against whom there was ‘No Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372120 dt.04 09 2021 Confidence Motion’ had taken away many members on a trip to Nepal deliberately to frustrate the consideration of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against him and the Block Development Officer in connivance with him had lodged the case after five days of the occurrence which itself indicates that it has been done for oblique reasons 7. In opposition learned APP had submitted that though there is delay in lodging of the FIR but the same is because the CCTV footage was being verified to identify the culprits which took time. It was submitted that perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge XII Bhagalpur dated 21.08.2020 in ABP No. 9720 by which the prayer for pre arrest bail of the petitioner along with another co accused has been rejected indicates that from the photograph and the video recording it is clear that the petitioner along with other persons was causing damage in the chamber of the President of the Zila Parishad However to verify the actual position he had submitted that the Court may call for a report from the police 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he was ready to cooperate in the exercise 9. Having regard to the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the parties on 13.07.2021 the Court had directed the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372120 dt.04 09 2021 Senior Superintendent of Police Bhagalpur for conducting an exercise with regard to comparison of the CCTV footage of the incident where the presence and behaviour action of the petitioner would be noted in his presence with reference to such CCTV footage. Thereafter a report was required to be submitted Though there has been delay in completion of the exercise but finally the same has been done on 25.08.2021. 10. In terms thereof the Senior Superintendent of Police Bhagalpur has submitted a report in which the outcome of the said exercise has also been brought on record which indicates that the petitioner was seen coming out of the chamber of the then Chairman along with others and after office of the Zila Parishad Bhagalpur being locked the petitioner had also raised slogan against the Chairman 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of enthusiasm he had raised slogans and his presence was due to the fact that his wife was Member of the Zila Parishad. However it was submitted that no vandalism was caused 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that by the conduct of the petitioner when admittedly he is the husband of the Zila Parishad Member there was no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.372120 dt.04 09 2021 business for him to be coming out of the chamber of the Chairman and thereafter shouting slogan. This clearly indicates that he had a role which was not proper and rather against the law. Thus the Court is not persuaded to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner 13. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed. 14. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under order dated 13.07.2021 stands vacated (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner apprehended arrest under Sections 427 IPC, “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees”, section 353, “Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty”, section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for extortion. —Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This present petition is in connection with Kotwali (Jogsar) PS Case No. 47 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 4th of September 2021 in the case of Dhananjay Yadav Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37215 of 2020] Mr Manoj Kumar Jha represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Chandra Bhushan Prasad represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner and others were accused of creating nuisance in the office of the Zila Parishad on the 15ht of January 2019 because in the office a meeting was being conducted regarding consideration of no Confidence Motion against the President. The counsel representing the petitioner held that these allegations are false and the petitioner has a wife who is also a Zila Parishad member and the petitioner had only assisted her in commuting to the special meeting however the meeting was stopped and could not proceed and the reasons for this has been given in detail by the vice president of the Zila Parishad and it was due to the lack of quorum, and the time stated in the FIR, there is no mentioning of any violence or incident has been lodged by the Block Development Officer, Goradih-cum-Deputed Magistrate, Bhagalpur of the said Special Meeting. For more evidence that the petitioner is innocent a CCTV footage has also been produced before the court and there is no evidence as to the petitioner committing any crime or overt act. The president for the Zila Parishad had been taken away by members on a trip to Nepal, with the intention to frustrate the consideration of ‘No Confidence Motion against him and the Block Development Office lodged this FIR only 5 days after the incident which clearly indicates it’s been done for oblique reasons and therefore the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The additional public prosecutor held that the reason there was a delay in lodging the FIR was that the footage from the CCTV was required to be verified and to identify the culprits took time. The APP also held that on the 21st of August 2020 Additional Sessions Judge XII, Bhagalpur in ABP No. 972 of 2020 rejected the pre-arrest bail for the petitioner along with another co-accused. Further, the petitioner has clearly seen in CCTV footage that the petitioner was the one damaging the chamber of the president of the Zila Parishad. The high court of Patna directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur to do an investigation regarding the CCTV footage of the incident. The police after the order submitted a report which indicates that the petitioner was seen coming out of the chamber of the then Chairman along with others and after the office of the Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur was locked, the petitioner was guilty of raising a slogan against the Chairman. The counsel for the petitioner in accordance with the new evidence stated that he only raised such slogans merely on enthusiasm because his wife was a member of the Zila Parishad.