The petitioner was arrested on the 11th of June 2020 under Section 341 IPC, “Punishment for wrongful restraint.” section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt” section324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means” section 325, “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.” section 307, “Attempt to murder.” and section 354B, “assaults or uses criminal force to any woman “section 34IPC “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This motion slip is in connection with the Naubatpur PS Case No. 303 of 2020
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 19th of July 2021 in the case of Rudal Paswan v/s Ramdeo Paswan criminal miscellaneous No. 12105 of 2021, Mr. Bimal Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Shankar represented as the additional public prosecutor for the state of Bihar
The following are the facts of the case, the incident took place on 10/06/2020 at 4:00 PM the petitioners were armed with garasa and entered a mango orchard and was ordered to kill the informant because she was working as the caretaker of the orchard and this work was supposed to be given to the armed petitioners, there has been an allegation that the co-accused was also armed with garasa and assaulted the informant’s husband and her two sons and another co-villager which resulted in injuries, the petitioners threw her to the ground and tried to outrage her modesty and broke her tooth and her husband had to be given 15 stitches on the head and was in a serious condition after being admitted in the emergency ward.
According to the counsel for the petitioners, he submitted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, he claimed that these allegations were false because initially the petitioners were taking care of the mango orchard and the informants had lately put pressure on the petitioners, and due to certain caste rivalry, this allegation has been falsely implicated regarding the 15 stitches on the head of the informant’s husband it has been transpired that the injury report has not even been prepared which indicates the falsity of the crime and the petitioners has no other criminal antecedent The additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners instigated the attack and are solely responsible for the crime and they shouldn’t be given bail.
The court held that after considered the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners will 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 chief justice magistrate under the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 and further, “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behavior of the petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall also give an undertaking to the Court that they shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activity.”
The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. The petitioners shall cooperate in the case and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall also 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, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.”