Simple Exhortation to kill doesn’t shape the justification for capturing the charged while the blamed have not submitted any obvious demonstration: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 382220 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 413 Year 2020 Thana SONEPUR District Saran 1. Akhilesh Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary Male aged about 68 years Son of Late Jaglal Chaudhary. 2. Avishek Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Chaudhary Male aged about 28 years Son of Akhilesh Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary Saurav Kumar Chaudhary Male aged about 25 years Son of Akhilesh Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary All are resident of Village Gheghta PS Sonepur District Saran The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Udit Narayan Singh Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No. 1 APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Udit Narayan Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No. 1 learned Additional Public Prosecutoreach with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Saran at Chapra in Sonepur PS Case No. 4120 subject to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.382220 dt.27 08 2021 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 petitioners that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners andthat they 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 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions 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 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: Solicitors affirmed of attack allowed bail subsequent to building up the grounds that they were just a piece of appeal and had not submitted any unmistakable demonstration without help from anyone else. The Court thought about the matter and passed the request for giving bail keeping in thought the demonstration and that they had no other criminal precursor. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Akhilesh Chaudhary and Ors. v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38228 of 2020].  The facts of the case were that the solicitors were secured capture in association with a case enlisted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was affirmed against the solicitor that he has submitted the attack on the source and different people. It is determined that he had admonished to kill on which the co-blamed that he had assaulted with Hasuli on the person in question, who had supported wounds on the neck and had fallen. Another co-blamed has been claimed for causing wounds on the neck, hands, and back. The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner has presented that there exists a counter case for a similar which has been founded by the Petitioner’s child as against the witness and others under Section 342, 323, 324, and 504/34 of the Indian reformatory Code. The Petitioner’s side had endured wounds brought about by the blade. Likewise, there exist no particular charges against the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 and subsequently, they were only a piece of the horde present during the episode. They further added that the main charge against Petitioner No. 1 is that he had urged to kill yet no unmistakable demonstration has been ascribed to him. The Additional Public Prosecutor battled that the Petitioners had a typical expectation of attacking the source and others. Nonetheless, it wasn’t contested that he had just been affirmed of admonishment. Subsequently, no plain demonstration has been affirmed. 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, the fact that the petitioner no. 1 is said to have only extorted others to kill the informant and there being no overt act alleged against petitioners no. 2 and 3 and all the petitioners having no other criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition hence stood disposed of on the terms and conditions of the bail.