Petitioner released on bail after being arrested under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354B/34IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 121021 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 303 Year 2020 Thana NAUBATPUR District Patna Rudal Paswan aged about 43 years Gender Male. Ramdeo Paswan aged about 39 years Gender Male Both sons of Nanda Paswan. Both residents of Village Jafra Bhagwanpur PS Naubatpur District Patna The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Bimal Kumar Advocate Mr. Binod Shankar Modi APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 14.07.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Binod Shankar Modi learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Naubatpur PS Case No. 3020 dated 11.06.2020 instituted under Sections 341 323 324 325 307 354B 34 of the Indian 5. As per the allegation in the FIR the petitioners are said to have come to the mango orchard of Chandrakant Sharma Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.121021 dt.19 07 2021 being armed with garasa and they had ordered to kill the informant asking her why she was working as a caretaker due to which their work had been taken as they would have got to take care of the said orchard. Further it has been alleged that the other co accused who were also armed with garasa had assaulted the informant’s husband her two sons and another co villager resulting in injuries on them had also thrown her on the ground and had tried to outrage her modesty and had taken her ornaments and also broken one tooth. It has also been stated that her husband had to be given 15 stitches on her head and was in a serious condition being admitted to PMCH Emergency Ward 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident took place on 10.06.2020 at 4:00 PM but the FIR has been lodged on 11.06.2020 at 10:00 AM and thus there is quite a delay which has not been explained. Learned counsel submitted that the reason for false implication is that the mango orchard was initially taken care of by the petitioners’ side and the informant had been lately inducted and to put pressure on the petitioners’ side they have been falsely implicated. It was submitted that due to caste rivalry also such allegation has been made. Learned counsel submitted that though in the FIR there is allegation of assault leading to the informant’s husband getting 15 stitches on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.121021 dt.19 07 2021 his head but in the order of the Court below it has been noted that from the case diary it transpired that injury report had still not been prepared which shows the falsity of the allegation. Learned counsel submitted that at best the allegation against the petitioners is only of giving order to kill without any overt act being attributed to them and that they have no other criminal 7. Learned APP submitted that as per the allegation the petitioners had instigated others to attack. However it was not controverted that except for the allegation of them being order givers no overt act has been attributed to them 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 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 learned ACJM III Danapur Patna in Naubatpur PS Case No. 3020 subject to 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 with regard to good Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.121021 dt.19 07 2021 behaviour of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the Court that they shall not indulge in any illegal criminal activity act in violation of any law statutory provisions tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. The petitioners shall cooperate in the case and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause shall also lead to cancellation of their bail bonds 9. 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 10. The petition stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested on the 11th of June 2020 under Section 341 IPC, “Punishment for wrongful restraint.” section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt” section324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means” section 325, “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.” section 307, “Attempt to murder.” and section 354B, “assaults or uses criminal force to any woman “section 34IPC “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This motion slip is in connection with the Naubatpur PS Case No. 303 of 2020 This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 19th of July 2021 in the case of Rudal Paswan v/s Ramdeo Paswan criminal miscellaneous No. 12105 of 2021, Mr. Bimal Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Shankar represented as the additional public prosecutor for the state of Bihar   The following are the facts of the case, the incident took place on 10/06/2020 at 4:00 PM the petitioners were armed with garasa and entered a mango orchard and was ordered to kill the informant because she was working as the caretaker of the orchard and this work was supposed to be given to the armed petitioners, there has been an allegation that the co-accused was also armed with garasa and assaulted the informant’s husband and her two sons and another co-villager which resulted in injuries, the petitioners threw her to the ground and tried to outrage her modesty and broke her tooth and her husband had to be given 15 stitches on the head and was in a serious condition after being admitted in the emergency ward. According to the counsel for the petitioners, he submitted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, he claimed that these allegations were false because initially the petitioners were taking care of the mango orchard and the informants had lately put pressure on the petitioners, and due to certain caste rivalry, this allegation has been falsely implicated regarding the 15 stitches on the head of the informant’s husband it has been transpired that the injury report has not even been prepared which indicates the falsity of the crime and the petitioners has no other criminal antecedent The additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners instigated the attack and are solely responsible for the crime and they shouldn’t be given bail. The court held that after considered the facts and circumstances of the case 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 satisfaction of the learned chief justice magistrate under the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 and further, “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behavior of the petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the Court that they shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activity.”