The Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner after being arrested under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 325, 354B,379,504,506 and 34IPC: High court Of Patna
The petitioner was arrested under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for criminal trespass”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 324, “ Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 325, “Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt”, section 354B, “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman”, section 379, “Snatching with the intention to commit theft” 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 Digha PS Case No. 152 of 2020 dated 10.03.2020
This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 12th of July 2021 in the case of Ravi Singh versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 33999 of 2020, Mr. Agrawal represented as the senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Singh represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held through a video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was accused along with 40-50 others of attacking the informant as they were singing and partying near the house of the informant, the informant asked them to remove their motorcycles and the petitioner refused and initiated a fight and attacked the informant using sharp weapons causing injury on the head of the informant, further allegations against the group of people were that they attacked the informant on his shoulder and illegally entered his house and misbehaved with his sister-in-law and abused his father and snatched 26,000Rs from the informant.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties are neighbors and due to some misunderstanding and altercation initiated a petty dispute and the allegations against the petitioner are false and blown out of proportion, it was further held that the injury caused was of simple in nature caused by blunt substances, previously on the 02.09.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3806 of 2020, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected and since petitioner is still young and has no criminal antecedent plea for bail was made in the high court.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the 40-50 persons must be held in custody as they were creating a public nuisance in full public view sending a wrong message to the society and fear is created in the neighborhood, the petitioner was trying to flex his mussels to intimidate the residents.
The court concluded that “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.”