Blog

The petitioners were arrested under Sections147 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for rioting”, section148, “Rioting, armed with a 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”, section 307, “Attempt to murder” and sections 337, 338, 353, 332, 333, 285, 190 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. This is in connection with Nardiganj PS Case No. 03 of 2020 dated 02.01.2020.

This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna on the 30^th of July 2021, by the Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of Bikram Kumar versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37699 of 2020, Mr. Bhavesh represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upadhyaya represented the state of Bihar as the additional public prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held through video conference.  

The petitioners along with 14 others named and 100-115 unknown persons were accused of being a part of a mob. A driver of a pick van was assaulted by the locals as they accused him of committing theft of paddy at Hatia and during the course of his treatment for the injuries he died and because this incident, the mob was protesting the death of the driver and attacked the police while they were protesting.

The counsel for the petitioners held that the accusation has been falsely implicated, the petitioners were a part of a mob and they were peacefully protesting with the dead body of the driver. The counsel submitted that it was recorded that the mob had attacked the police with brickbats, bamboo sticks, and tyres which resulted in injuries. Here however petitioner no.1 (Student) and petitioner no.2 (Farmer) reached the spot only upon seeing the mob and had no connection with the incident and has been wrongly accused and he further conceded that they have no criminal antecedent.

The additional public prosecutor held that even though the petitioners have been mentioned in the FIR and have been identified in the CCTV footage. There was no allegation of a specific overt act and all the allegations were general and omnibus in nature against the accused.

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 to the satisfaction of the  Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawada in connection with the Nardiganj PS Case No. 03 of 2020, under 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 bond with regard to the good behaviour 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.”

Click here to read the judgment