The father of the petitioner is responsible for the crime, as he coerced the informant’s husband to commit an illegal activity which resulted in his death.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 275321 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 41 Year 2020 Thana TETERHAT District Lakhisarai Chhotu Kumar @ Abhishek Raj aged about 19 years Son of Ashok Ram Resident of Village Mahisona PS Tetarhat District Lakhisarai The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Mayank Bilochan Advocate For the State Mr. Satyendra Prasad APP For the Informant Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21 08 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 petitioner on 09.08.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Mayank Bilochan learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Satyendra Prasad learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad learned counsel for the informant. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.275321 dt.21 08 2021 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Tetarhat PS Case No. 41 of 2020 dated 21.04.2020 instituted under Sections 188 269 270 302 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he and his father had gone to the house of the deceased at night and had coerced him to go for lifting sand at night and thereafter from the tractor of the father of the petitioner the husband of the informant was crushed leading to his death 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been implicated only because he is the son of the person who owned the tractor. It was submitted that he is a student and has nothing to do in the entire episode. It was submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation nothing has come against the petitioner and final form has been submitted by the police not sending him up for trial in which it has been stated that the father of the petitioner who was also the owner and driver of the tractor was responsible for the death of the husband of the informant and he had surrendered before the Court below and was in judicial custody. Learned counsel submitted that chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 279 337 and 304 of the Indian Penal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.275321 dt.21 08 2021 Code against the father of the petitioner. It was further submitted that it is only the informant and persons close to him and close relatives who have supported the prosecution story and no independent witness has supported it 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was equally responsible for having forced the husband of the informant to go for illegal loading of sand on the tractor belonging to his father 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner had also come with his father to the house of the deceased and had forced him to go with them for the purpose of loading sand illegally. Thus it was submitted that the petitioner was equally responsible for having forced the husband of the informant to commit such crime which has resulted in death as he was crushed by the tractor. Learned counsel submitted that there is admission on the part of the petitioner that the tractor owned by his father was being used for illegal sand mining and thus from the circumstances it is also obvious that the petitioner accompanied his father to the house of the deceased compelling him to come and get his tractor loaded with sand which was illegal and that is why it was being done at night. Learned counsel submitted that the Court has taken cognizance under Section 302 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.275321 dt.21 08 2021 of the Indian Penal Code as also the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However it was not controverted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had also come with his father to the house of the deceased for calling him 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that basically it is the father of the petitioner who is responsible for the incident as he was driving the tractor and was also the owner of the same and the husband of the informant appears to have been forced to go for loading the sand on the tractor at night since it was being illegally done which has resulted in the accident for which there are chances that the petitioner just because he was son of co accused Ashok Ram has also been implicated. Thus taking an overall view in the matter the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 10. 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 twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lakhisarai in Tetarhat PS Case No. 41 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.275321 dt.21 08 2021 Procedure 1973 and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal criminal activity act in violation of any law statutory provisions tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses 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 failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions 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 petitioner 12. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Sections 188 IPC, “Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant”, section 269, “Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease danger­ous to life”, section 270, “Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease danger­ous to life”, section 302, “Punishment for murder”, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” and section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, “Penalty for any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 IPC.” This present petition is in connection with Tetarhat PS Case No. 41 of 2020 dated 21.04.2020. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 21st August  2021 in the case of Chotu Kumar @ Abhishek Raj, Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27530 of 2021] Mr Mayank Bilochan represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Satyendra Prasad represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Bhim Sen Prasad 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 allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner and his father visited the house of the deceased at night and persuaded him to go for sand lifting from the tractor belonging to the father of the petitioner and the husband of the informant who is the victim and deceased was crushed to death. The counsel representing the petitioner held that this is a false implication as the petitioner is the only son of the owner of the tractor and he is also a student and has no connection with this incident. Further, the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent and even during the investigation there is no evidence against the petitioner submitted by the police and the father was solely responsible for the death of the informant’s husband and also confessed before the court while he was in judicial custody. Further, the counsel held that it is only the informant and her friends who support the prosecution story and there is no independent witness. The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioner must not be given bail as he is equally responsible for the crime and he forced the husband of the informant to indulge in the illegal loading of sand from the tractor. The counsel representing the informant held that the petitioner also came along with his father and entered the house of the deceased and forced the deceased for some illegal sand loading, therefore the petitioner was equally responsible for committing the crime which resulted in the death of the informant’s husband as he was used for illegal purposes and this is another reason as to why it took place during the night and various witness has also supported the prosecution case. However, it is not controverted that the petitioner came along only after the father called him. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that basically, it is the father of the petitioner who is responsible for the incident, as he was driving the tractor and was also the owner of the same and the husband of the informant was held to have been forced to go for loading the sand on the tractor at night, which has resulted in his death. Therefore the  Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.