Blog

The petitioner was arrested under Section 341 IPC,” Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 337, “ Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others”, section 354-B, “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506 “Punishment for criminal intimidation”  and section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This  is in connection with Shahpur PS Case No. 287 of 2019 dated 24.10.2019

This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 23^rd of July 2021 by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Kasim Mansuri and others v/s the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.4421 of 2021, Mr. Md Haque represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upadhyay 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 petitioners were accused of assaulting the informant and other relatives. They had torn her clothes and snatched her nose ring, ear tops, and other ornaments worn by the informant.

However the counsel for the petitioner held that this accusation has been falsely implicated and stated that this incident occurred due to some dispute of erection of an electric pole on the 22^nd of December 2019 around 1:00 PM, the counsel held that the petitioner received a grievous injury and the petitioners have actually filed a case against the informant and her family in Shahpur PS Case No. 286 of 2019 on 24.10.2019 under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. and therefore this present case has been filed as a defense to that same incident. He also conceded there have been no specific allegations against the petitioner and all the injuries were simple in nature.

The additional Public prosecutor submitted that even though the injuries were simple, the victim suffered from a fracture on her toe, he also submitted that all the cases relate to the same incident and the injuries suffered by both sides were simple except for the fracture.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that 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 Additional Chief Judicial 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 petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute the bond and give undertaking concerning good behavior of the petitioners, and (iii) that they 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 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.”

Click here to read the judgment