The petitioner was arrested under Section 147 IPC, “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 a common object”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt” and sections 333, 337, 324, 307, 353, 188 IPC.
This is in connection with the Bajpatti PS Case No. 332 of 2020 dated 16.08.2020. This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 16th of July 2021 in the case of Vinay Maahto and other v/s the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.40871 of 2020 by Honourable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Ms. Madhubala Verma represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar represented as the additional public prosecutor for the state of Bihar the proceedings of the court were held through a video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners along with 17 others and 100-150 unknown persons were accused of quarreling among themselves at the time of immersion of the image of Krishna and they had organized this event in violation of the Covid-19 guidelines. The sub-inspector of police arrived at the place for restoration of peace and order and the petitioners prevented them from carrying out their duty by attacking the police with brick, bats, lathi, danda, and sword.
According to the counsel for the petitioner he held that these allegations have been falsely implicated and the petitioners have been named with ulterior motive by the chukidaar and the FIR clearly states that the police received a simple injury in the midst of the mob and police personnel, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, the counsel also submitted that the co-accused all have been granted anticipatory bail by an order passed by the bench of this court on the 22nd June 2021 Cr. Misc. No. 40722 of 2020The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been identified by the chaukidar who have been named in the FIR
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 Sub Divisional 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 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”