Petitioners were released on bail after being arrested under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 379, 504, 506, 386, 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, 1957: High court of Patna
The petitioners were apprehended under Section 147 IPC, “Punishment for rioting”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint” section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 325, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt” and section 379, “Punishment for theft”, section 504, “ Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” and sections 506, 386, 307 IPC, and 27 of the Arms Act, 1957, “Punishment for using arms.” This is in connection with Teghra PS Case No. 363 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019.
This Judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 30th of July 2021 in the case of Ram Kumar Ray versus Sonu Kumar criminal miscellaneous No. 14576 of 2021, Mr. Mukesh Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ajeet Kumar represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceeding of the court was held through video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the allegation against the petitioner is that they were party to demand of extortion by the co-accused who is the father of the petitionermo.2 the allegations against the petitioners were general and omnibus and the co-accused were held for assaulting the informant by hitting his head using the butt of the gun, petitioner no.2 was accused of taking away Rs. 55,000 and also the cash box from the poultry farm belonging to the informant.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations were false and have been instituted for oblique reasons, petitioner no.2 and his father being the neighbors of the informant were accused only due to some dispute regarding the Panchayati verdict. Regarding the allegation that petitioner no.2 took away Rs.55,000 is ornamental. Allegations against the brother of petitioner no.2 that he had given repeated blows on the head of the son of the informant using the butt of a gun, even though he is not the petitioner in this case, such allegations against the family of the petitioner are falsified because according to the injury report only two wounds have been found on the head no sign of repeated blows. The counsel further submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent.
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of Bihar held that clearly, the petitioners were a party to the demand of extortion and committed an assault on the son of the informant. However it is not controverted that the allegations against petitioner no.1 are general and omnibus while the allegations against petitioner no.2 took away Rs50,000 and cash box from the poultry farm of the informant.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court decided that the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under certain conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 1973 “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14576 of 2021 dt.30-07-2021 4/4 petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioners and (iii) that the petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution.”
The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate 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.”