Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being arrested under sections 147,149, 323,325,307,504, 506,379IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.354820 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 217 Year 2018 Thana MAHNAR District Vaishali Pulish Rai age 46 yearsson of late Saryug Rai resident of village Allipur Hutta P.S. Mahanar Distt. Vaishali ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh Advocate Ms. Pushpa Sinha APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s Date : 20 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mahanar PS Case No. 2118 dated 26.08.2018 instituted under Sections 147 149 323 325 307 504 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner along with others is accused of assault on the informant side and specifically against the petitioner of inflicting iron rod blow on the hand of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.354820 dt.20 07 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though as per the allegation the assault was on the hand and a fracture has also been found in the X ray but the informant side were the aggressors as has come during investigation. Learned counsel submitted that it is not alleged that the petitioner gave repeated blows which shows that there was no intention to cause any serious harm and because of there being scuffle in the heat of the moment injuries have been sustained by both the sides Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner’s side had also lodged a counter case for the same incident. It was submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submitted that he may be given some time to take instructions as to whether the matter has been settled compromised between the parties. It was submitted that from the FIR itself it is clear that it was the informant’s side which had come to confront the petitioner’s side as to why they had lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police against them. Learned counsel submitted that the present case is counter blast to Mahnar PS Case No. 2218 in which the fardbeyan of the petitioner was recorded in the Sadar Hospital Hajipur on 26.08.2018 at 10.00 AM and thereafter this case has been lodged on 26.08.2018 by the informant. Learned counsel submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.354820 dt.20 07 2021 the present case has been instituted on the basis of a written complaint and the incident alleged is of a day prior i.e. 25.08.2018 and for the delay there is no explanation. Learned counsel submitted that the parties are agnates and there is land dispute and on the petitioner’s side injury is grievous whereas on the informant’s side except for one injury i.e. fracture of the hand other injuries are simple in nature and most importantly the petitioner himself being injured if at all had committed some overt act it was to protect himself which would be clear from Mahnar PS Case No. 223 of 2018. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent 6. At this juncture when the Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to what were his instructions as he had taken time to know whether the matter has been settled compromised between the parties he submitted that despite the best effort of the petitioner as a Title Suit is pending between the parties the informant’s side is not ready for any 7. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However it was not controverted that the place of occurrence is at the house of the petitioner. It was also not controverted that except for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.354820 dt.20 07 2021 fracture on the hand of the informant all other injuries are simple in nature as also the fact that independent witnesses have stated that even the informant had attacked the petitioner by iron rod and he had sustained injuries. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner andthat the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.354820 dt.20 07 2021 petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 10. The petition stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under section 147 Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for rioting”, section 149, “ Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense commit­ted in the prosecution of a common object”, Section 323, “voluntarily causing hurt”, section 325, “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506 “Punishment for criminal intimidation” and 379IPC “Punishment for theft.” This was in connection with Mahanar PS Case No. 217 of 2018 dated 26.08.2018. The petitioner along with others was accused of injuring the hand of the informant with an iron rod. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 20th of July 201 by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Pulish Rai v/s the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.35485 of 2020, Mr. Mukesh Singh represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha represented the state of Bihar as the additional public prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held through video conference.   According to the counsel for the petitioner, after investigation it was submitted that the allegation for assault on the hand of the informant was found to be a fracture but the informant here are the aggressors for this incident the counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that he repeatedly gave blows on the hand with an iron rod was completely false and it was not done with the intention to cause any grievous hurt, this accident took play because of a scuffle and in the heat of the moment both the parties sustained injuries. The counsel submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent, the counsel held that the parties are agnates and there has been a land dispute, the petitioner also sustained a grievous injury while as the informant has only one injury of a fracture which are simple in nature. The additional public prosecutor held that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and it was not controverted that the place of the incident took place in the house of the petitioner. The high court decided that the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned chief justice magistrate subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 “ (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioner, (iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution.”