0

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being arrested under sections 147,149, 323,325,307,504, 506,379IPC: High court of Patna

The petitioner was arrested under section 147 Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for rioting”, section 149, “ Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense commit­ted in the prosecution of a common object”, Section 323, “voluntarily causing hurt”, section 325, “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506 “Punishment for criminal intimidation” and 379IPC “Punishment for theft.” This was in connection with Mahanar PS Case No. 217 of 2018 dated 26.08.2018. The petitioner along with others was accused of injuring the hand of the informant with an iron rod.

This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 20th of July 201 by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Pulish Rai v/s the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.35485 of 2020, Mr. Mukesh Singh represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha represented the state of Bihar as the additional public prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held through video conference.  

According to the counsel for the petitioner, after investigation it was submitted that the allegation for assault on the hand of the informant was found to be a fracture but the informant here are the aggressors for this incident the counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that he repeatedly gave blows on the hand with an iron rod was completely false and it was not done with the intention to cause any grievous hurt, this accident took play because of a scuffle and in the heat of the moment both the parties sustained injuries.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent, the counsel held that the parties are agnates and there has been a land dispute, the petitioner also sustained a grievous injury while as the informant has only one injury of a fracture which are simple in nature. The additional public prosecutor held that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and it was not controverted that the place of the incident took place in the house of the petitioner.

The high court decided that the petitioner will 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 chief justice magistrate 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 the police/prosecution.”

The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or undertaking or failure to cooperate 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 immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms

Click here to read the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *