Petitioner released on bail after being arrested under sections 341/323/324/307/354/325/379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code: High court of Patna
This is in connection with Pupri PS Case No. 198 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020. The petitioner was arrested under Section 341IPC, “Punishment for wrongful restraint,” section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 354, “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty,” section 325, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt”, and sections 379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This Judgement was given in the High court Of judicature at Patna by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 3rd of August 2021 in the case of Md. Tasdik versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 20516 of 2021, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Atul Chandra 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 petitioner was accused along with seven others were armed with various weapons and committed assault on the informant, the petitioner was accused of trying to inflict a knife blow on the head of the injured but somehow the injured saved himself and the knife caused wounds in his stomach.
The counsel for the petitioner held that according to the FIR, the dispute was between the co-accused and the informant, the co-accused had taken four biscuit packets without paying and has threatened the informant saying that his grandfather was the sarpanch (head of the village) and along with others assaulted the informant. But the petitioner had no concern with this dispute and was not related to the co-accused. The only connection is that the petitioner is a co-villager and was aware of the co-accused. However, according to the injury report, it clearly shows a lacerated wound on the right parietal region and nothing else and hence wouldn’t constitute grievous hurt. Therefore such allegations against the petitioner regarding the knife blow were falsely implicated further the counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
The additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner must be held liable because he was a party to the attack on the informant. However, regarding the injuries, the report shows no sign of injury on the stomach, and only a lacerated wound was found on the head caused by a blunt substance.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court decided that the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the S.D.J.M., in connection with the Pupri PS Case No. 198 of 2020, 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 petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioner, (iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and police/prosecution.”
The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”