Petitioners convicted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, and 153A IPC, released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds: High court of Patna
The petitioners were arrested in connection with the Konch PS case no.66 of 2020 under section 147IPC, “Punishment for rioting, Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” section 148, “Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.” section 149, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in the prosecution of a common object”, section 341, “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 153A IPC, “Promoting enmity between different groups “
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 1ST of July 2021 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Shamshuddin Miya and others v/s the state of Bihar criminal Miscellaneous No. 3340 of 2021, Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Arif for the state of Bihar. The proceedings of the court were held through video conferencing due to the covid-19 pandemic.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused during a cultural program that is on the eve of Holi that petitioner No.1 attacked the informant with a rod causing him injuries, and the other petitioners were accused of being armed with garasa, spear, gun, iron rod, and sword and also committed assault which resulted in the injury of five more people they have also been accused of snatching gold chain necklace from the neck of the informant.
However the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for the dispute was regarding some fight between the children, the counsel held that injuries were sustained on both sides and they were superficial in nature, he also submitted to the court copies of the injury reports as evidence and future conceded that the dispute has been settled between the two parties and there is peace and claimed that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and held that the dispute was only a minor misunderstanding.
However, the additional public prosecutor held there has been an allegation of assault causing injury, and also regarding the injury reports brought on record it transpires the same is simple in nature.
The court held that petitionerNo.1 and No.2 will be released on bail by furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties each amount to the satisfaction of the additional chief judicial magistrate and subject to the conditions laid down in section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 and further(i) One of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioners (ii) the bailors and petitioners must execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioners and (iii) they are required to co-operate with the police and court.
The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners no. 1 and 2, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no. 1 and 2. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”