Bail denied regarding Brutal Assault and Hanging till Death: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEALNo 17021 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 261 Year 2020 Thana KHAJANCHI HAT District Purnia MD RAJU SON OF LATE NIZAM R O NEW SIPAHI TOLA MARANGA ROAD MATA CHAUK P.S. K. HAT DISTRICT PURNEA The State of Bihar ... Appellant s ... Respondent s For the Appellant s For the S t a t e For the I n f o r m a n t CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD Mr Raj Kumar Advocate Ms Usha Kumari I Special PP Mr Amit Kumar Anand Advocate Date : 20 09 2021 This case has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing 2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutorappearing for the State of 3 The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 14 Aof Scheduled Castes and Scheduled TribesAct 1989against the refusal of his prayer for regular bail vide order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I cum Patna High Court CR. APPNo.17021 dt.20 09 2021 Special Judge SC ST Act Purnea in a case registered under Sections 147 148 149 341 323 302 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(V) of SC ST Act in connection with Special Case No 72 of 2020 CIS No 72 of 2020 arising out of K Hat Police StationCase No 2620. 4 The prosecution case is that for making a demand in respect of some dues from the accused persons informant’s son has brutally been assaulted in his shop and killed by 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that several persons have been implicated by general and omnibus allegation. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. The informant’s version is not as an eye witness. There are no other injuries in the post mortem report except strangulation 6 Learned counsel for the informant and learned Special PP have submitted that in paragraph 74 of case diary independent witness has stated regarding witnessing the assault perpetrated by all these accused persons. Similarly situated co accused Md Chand had moved this Court for grant of bail in Cr AppealNo 15621. The same has been rejected Patna High Court CR. APPNo.17021 dt.20 09 2021 7 In my opinion in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report and submission of parties a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 does not require interference by this Court which is accordingly affirmed 8 This appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC ST Act Purnea in connection with SpecialCase No 720 CIS No 720 arising out of K Hat PS Case No 2620 is affirmed 9 Prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected for Madhuresh Prasad J NAFR NA

Summary: The denounced was captured for ruthlessly attacking and balancing the source’s child to no end. For the situation, there was a sole observer who affirmed the wrongdoing. Considering all realities and conditions, the court denied the application for bail to the charged.  The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Madhuresh Prasad in the matter of MD Raju v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (SJ) No 1703 of 2021]. 
The Facts of the case were that the allure was documented under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the refusal of his supplication for ordinary bail passed by Additional Sessions Judge I for the situation enrolled under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code. The witness’ child was mercilessly attacked in his shop and killed by hanging when he requested to take care of the obligations from the charged individual.
The Appellant presented that few people have been involved by the general and omnibus claim. The appealing party had no criminal predecessor. The source’s rendition was not as an onlooker. There could have been no different wounds in the after-death report aside from strangulation. The autonomous observer had expressed in regards to seeing the attack executed by the charged.
Other candidates in a similar matter were not allowed bail and their request was excused by the Court. The Court was leaned to give the comparative choice in the current matter too. The Court depended on the sole observer and posthumous report, and in the light of current realities and conditions introduced by both sides, the Court chose the matter.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,”… taking into account nature of allegation in the First Information Report, and accommodation of gatherings, a case for award of normal rescue isn’t made. The reviled request dated 23.12.2020 doesn’t need obstruction by this Court, which is, appropriately, avowed. The criticized request dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea regarding Special (SC/ST) Case No 72 of 2020/CIS No 72 of 2020 emerging out of K Hat PS Case No 261 of 2020 is attested.” The allure was excused by the High Court and the petition for bail of the litigant was dismissed for the situation.
Click Here to Read the Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by Nimisha Dublish
 The Facts of the case were that the allure was documented under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the refusal of his supplication for ordinary bail passed by Additional Sessions Judge I for the situation enrolled under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code. The witness’ child was mercilessly attacked in his shop and killed by hanging when he requested to take care of the obligations from the charged individual. The Appellant presented that few people have been involved by the general and omnibus claim. The appealing party had no criminal predecessor. The source’s rendition was not as an onlooker. There could have been no different wounds in the after-death report aside from strangulation. The autonomous observer had expressed in regards to seeing the attack executed by the charged. Other candidates in a similar matter were not allowed bail and their request was excused by the Court. The Court was leaned to give the comparative choice in the current matter too. The Court depended on the sole observer and posthumous report, and in the light of current realities and conditions introduced by both sides, the Court chose the matter. The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,”… taking into account nature of allegation in the First Information Report, and accommodation of gatherings, a case for award of normal rescue isn’t made. The reviled request dated 23.12.2020 doesn’t need obstruction by this Court, which is, appropriately, avowed. The criticized request dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea regarding Special (SC/ST) Case No 72 of 2020/CIS No 72 of 2020 emerging out of K Hat PS Case No 261 of 2020 is attested.” The allure was excused by the High Court and the petition for bail of the litigant was dismissed for the situation.