This case is in connection with the Tarabari PS case no.77 of 2020 on the 12th of August 2020, the petitioner was arrested under Section 147IPC, “Punishment for rioting.”, section 148, “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon” section 149, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in the prosecution of the common object.” section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint.” section 323, “voluntarily causing hurt” section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.” section 326, “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means” section 307, “Attempt to murder” and sections 379,427, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 20th of July 2021 in the case of Md Usman v/s the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 10344 of 2021, Mr. Quamar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yogendra Kumar 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, a tempo driver, and others were accused of being armed and assaulted the informant and others, the allegation was specifically against the petitioner as he assaulted the informant and caused leg injury and swelling on the right ankle joint caused by a hard blunt substance.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, the injury which was reported was shown that the attack was simple in nature and was caused by a hard blunt substance that caused the swelling on the informant’s right ankle. The counsel for the petitioner held that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, the reason the informant and his nephew were injured was due to some enmity between the parties, the counsel further conceded that the petitioner was present at Forbesganj on the date of the incident and was not present when the injury took place and therefore prayed before the court to release the petitioner from the arrest.
However, the additional public prosecutor held that the petitioner and the co-accused committed an assault on the right leg of the informant, which resulted in swelling and injury. Such an act comes under grievous hurt and therefore objected against the bail for the petitioner.
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 satisfaction of the l Chief Judicial Magistrate, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. “(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 and (iii) petitioner shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the Court.”
The court concluded “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 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 action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”