Petitioner released on bail after being arrested under sections 341/323/324/307/354/325/379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 205121 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 198 Year 2020 Thana PUPRI District Sitamarhi Md. Tasdik aged about 25 years Gender Male son of Md. Modassir resident of Village Gaddha Police Station Pupri District Sitamarhi The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s Appearance : For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh Advocate Mr. Atul Chandra APP 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 petitioner on 28.07.2021 which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atul Chandra learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Date : 03 08 2021 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 205121 dt.03 08 2021 2 5 Pupri PS Case No. 198 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020 instituted under Sections 341 323 324 307 354 325 379 504 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The allegation against the petitioner and seven others is of being armed with various weapons and of assault on the informant side and specifically against the petitioner is that he tried to inflict knife blow on the head of the injured Md. Pyare but he saved himself and finally the knife is said to have caused wound in his stomach. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR itself the dispute was between co accused Md. Shaan and the informant and it is stated that Md. Shaan had taken four packets of biscuit without paying and had threatened that his grand father was the Sarpanch and he along with others had assaulted the informant but the petitioner has no concern with such dispute as he is not related to Md. Shaan. It was submitted that only because he is a co villager and known to Md. Shaan he has been made accused. Learned counsel submitted that besides having no criminal antecedent the injury report of Md. Pyare clearly shows that there was only a lacerated wound on right parietal region and no other wound and the same was also caused by hard and blunt substance Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 205121 dt.03 08 2021 3 5 which completely negates the allegation that he had inflicted knife blow firstly on the head and then causing injury in the stomach. It was submitted that for the same incident Pupri PS Case No. 1920 has been filed by co accused Md. Chand Alam under Sections 341 323 354 504 379 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant side. 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was also party to the attack on the informant side. However in view of copy of the injury report of Md. Pyare who is said to have been assaulted by the petitioner by knife he could not controvert that no injury on the stomach has been found and only lacerated wound on the head has been found and that too caused by hard blunt substance. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that there was fight for some dispute between the informant and co accused Md. Shaan and the petitioner has also been named as being one of the persons who had come in support of Md. Shaan and assaulted the informant party and there being also a counter case and the specific and direct allegation of knife attack on Md. Pyare by the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 205121 dt.03 08 2021 4 5 on the head and thereafter causing injury in the stomach being totally not corroborated by the injury report of the said Md. Pyare the Court is inclined to allow the prayer. 9. Accordingly 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 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Pupri Sitamarhi in Pupri PS Case No. 198 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and police prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non cooperation shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 205121 dt.03 08 2021 5 5 11. The petition stands disposed of aforementioned terms. Anjani 

Summary: This is in connection with Pupri PS Case No. 198 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020. The petitioner was arrested under Section 341IPC, “Punishment for wrongful restraint,” section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 354, “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty,” section 325, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt”, and sections 379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Judgement was given in the High court Of judicature at Patna by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 3rd of August 2021 in the case of Md. Tasdik versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 20516 of 2021, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Atul Chandra represented as the additional public prosecutor for the state of Bihar. The proceedings of the court were held through video conference.   The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was accused along with seven others were armed with various weapons and committed assault on the informant, the petitioner was accused of trying to inflict a knife blow on the head of the injured but somehow the injured saved himself and the knife caused wounds in his stomach. The counsel for the petitioner held that according to the FIR, the dispute was between the co-accused and the informant, the co-accused had taken four biscuit packets without paying and has threatened the informant saying that his grandfather was the sarpanch (head of the village) and along with others assaulted the informant. But the petitioner had no concern with this dispute and was not related to the co-accused. The only connection is that the petitioner is a co-villager and was aware of the co-accused. However, according to the injury report, it clearly shows a lacerated wound on the right parietal region and nothing else and hence wouldn’t constitute grievous hurt. Therefore such allegations against the petitioner regarding the knife blow were falsely implicated further the counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner must be held liable because he was a party to the attack on the informant. However, regarding the injuries, the report shows no sign of injury on the stomach, and only a lacerated wound was found on the head caused by a blunt substance. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court decided that the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the S.D.J.M., in connection with the Pupri PS Case No. 198 of 2020, 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 police/prosecution.”