The court rejected pre-arrest bail for petitioner no. 1 as he caused grievous injuries but granted bail for petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 as they caused simple injuries: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.167521 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 325 Year 2020 Thana BAJPATTI District Sitamarhi 1. Md. Gulab aged about 44 years for the State and Mr. Alok Kumar Jha learned counsel for the informant. 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Bajpatti PS Case No. 3220 dated 13.08.2020 instituted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.167521 dt.21 08 2021 under Sections 341 323 324 307 379 427 447 504 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code 5. The allegation against the petitioners and ten others is of assault on the informant and others resulting in injuries and specifically against the petitioner no. 1 is of assault by farsa on the head of Md. Ezaz and against the petitioners no. 2 and 4 is of assault by iron rod on the informant Md. Tanseer whereas against the petitioner no. 3 the allegation is of hitting Enamul Haque by cemented pillar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are agnates and the dispute arose during Panchayati It was submitted that besides the occurrence being on the spur of the moment there is also a counter case. Learned counsel submitted that though the incident took place on 11.08.2020 but the FIR was lodged on 13.08.2020 that too on the written report submitted in the police station which clearly indicates that there were no serious injuries on the side of the informant Thus it was submitted that there is no explanation for the delay of almost two days in lodging of the FIR. Further it was submitted that the case filed by the petitioners’ side has been lodged on the basis of fard beyan of Md. Ubaid from Sadar Hospital Sitamarhi which shows that he was badly injured and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.167521 dt.21 08 2021 was in the hospital. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the injury report of Md. Ezaz who is said to have been assaulted by petitioner no. 1 which discloses two incised wounds bone deep on the head besides other wounds injury report of Enamul Haque shows swelling on the lips and mobility of teeth of lower and upper region which is attributed to the petitioner no. 3 as also the injury report of Md. Tanseer who is the informant and is said to have been assaulted by the petitioners no. 2 and 4 which discloses lacerated wound skin deep on the skull and bodyache. It was submitted that the nature of injuries have been said to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance except for that of Md. Ezaz on whom bleeding from both nostrils was also found which is said to be grievous in nature. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. 7. Learned APP submitted that there is specific allegation of assault against all the petitioners and the same has also resulted in injuries 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that just because there is a counter case it does not mean that the present case is false. However he could not controvert that there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR and further Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.167521 dt.21 08 2021 the injury reports copies of which have been brought on record were also not controverted. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that as there is specific allegation of overt act against the petitioner no. 1 that he assaulted by farsa on the head of Md. Ezaz who sustained bone deep injuries on the head the Court is not persuaded to grant pre arrest bail to him 10. Accordingly prayer for pre arrest bail on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 Md. Gulab stands rejected 11. As far as petitioners no. 2 3 and 4 are concerned in view of the specific overt act against the petitioners no. 2 and 3 i.e. Md. Ubaid and Md. Junaid of hitting by iron rod on the head of the informant Md. Tanseer and there being only one lacerated wound on the head which is simple in nature as also the fact that against petitioner no. 3 Md. Junaid there is allegation of assault on Enamul Haque whose lips were swollen and there was mobility of teeth of lower and upper region and all the aforesaid injuries have been found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and that the petitioners no 2 3 and 4 have no other criminal antecedent the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre arrest bail. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.167521 dt.21 08 2021 12. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners no. 2 3 and 4 Md. Ubaid Md. Zunaid and Md Suhail respectively 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Pupari at Sitamarhi in Bajpatti PS Case No. 3220 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 no. 2 3 and 4 that the petitioners no. 2 3 and 4 and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners no 2 3 and 4 andthat the petitioners no. 2 3 and 4 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 their bail bonds. 13. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioners no 2 3 and 4 to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.167521 dt.21 08 2021 hearing to the petitioners no. 2 3 and 4 14. The petition stands disposed of in the 15. However in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that if the petitioner no. 1 Md. Gulab appears before the Court below and seeks bail the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J order. J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioners were arrested under Section 341 IPC, “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 379, “Punishment for theft”, section 427, “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees”, section 447, “Punishment for criminal trespass”, section 504, “ Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, and sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This present petition is in connection with Bajpatti PS Case No. 325 of 2020 dated 13.08.2020. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 21st of August 2021 in the case of Md. Gulab and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.16757 of 2021, Mr Ashok Kumar Jha Represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr Sakir Ahmad represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Alok Kumar represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner and 10 others have been accused of assault on the informant and the others which resulted in injuries and petitioner no.1 has been specifically accused of assaulting one Mr Md. Ezaz with a farsa and petitioner no.2 and 4 has been accused of assaulting the informant with an iron rod and petitioner no.3 has been accused of hitting one Mr Enamul by a cemented pillar. The counsel representing the petitioner held that the parties are agnates and there has been a dispute during the Panchayati. This incident took place on 11th august 2020 and the FIR was filed on the 13th of august on a written report which shows that the injuries were not that serious on the informant’s side and it occurred in the spur of the moment, there has been no explanation for the delay in filing for the FIR there has also been a counter case filed by the petitioners’ side which shows that even the petitioner was seriously injured and was admitted in the hospital. According to the injury report for Mr Md. Ezaz discloses two incised wounds bone deep on the head besides other wounds; the injury report of Enamul Haque shows swelling on the lips and mobility of teeth of the lower and upper region, as also the injury report of Md. Tanseer (informant) discloses lacerated wound skin deep on the skull and body aches. However, all these injuries are considered simple in nature which is caused by hard and blunt substances except for Mr Md Ezaz as he had bleeding from his nostrils which were considered grievous in nature. Further, the counsel held that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. The additional public prosecutor held that the allegations of assault are very specific against the petitioners and the incident has also resulted in injuries. The counsel for the informant held that just because there is a counter case by the petitioner does not indicate the falsity of the present case however the counsel has not controverted the delay for filing the FIR and the copies of the injury reports. The court concluded that “the Court finds that as there is a specific allegation of overt act against the petitioner no. 1 that he assaulted by farsa on the head of Md. Ezaz, who sustained bone-deep injuries on the head, the Court is not persuaded to grant pre-arrest bail to him. Therefore the prayer for pre-arrest bail on behalf of petitioner no. 1, Md. Gulab stands rejected. However for petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, in view of the specific overt act against petitioners no. 2 and 3 i.e., Md. Ubaid and Md. Junaid, of hitting by iron rod on the head of the informant Md. Tanseer and there is only one lacerated wound on the head which is simple in nature as also the fact that against petitioner no. 3, Md. Junaid, there is an allegation of assault on Enamul Haque whose lips were swollen and there was the mobility of teeth of lower and upper region and all the aforesaid injuries have been found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and that the petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 have no other criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail. The petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4, Md. Ubaid, Md. Zunaid, and Md. Suhail, respectively, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.” Click here to read the judgment