0

The petitioners were released on bail after being apprehended under Sections 448, 341, 323, 504, 506, 307, 324, 354(A), 379/34IPC: High court of Punjab

Petitioner No.2 and 3 were arrested under Section 448, IPC, “Punishment for house-trespass”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” and sections 506, 307, 324, 354(A), 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is in connection with Gogari PS Case No. 411 of 2020 dated 22.11.2020.

This judgment 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 Ghanshyam Thakur and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 27621 of 2021, Mr. Kamal Kishore Represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Tarkeshwa represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners along with tow others are accused of assaulting the informant side and causing injuries and specific allegations against the petitioner no.2 and 3 were made where they assaulted the brother of the informant with lathi and danda on his month and head and the petitioner no1. Fled away after taking gold ornament which is worth Rs.3 lakhs.

The counsel representing the petitioners submitted that according to the FIR, the petitioners are neighbors to the informant and have been falsely implicated due to some land dispute between the parties. It was held that in 2011 the father of the Father of the petitioners filed a case for demarcation of their boundary against the petitioners and an order was passed for the same demarcation and the dispute is continuing and regarding the same incident.

The wife of petitioner no. 1  filed Gogari PS Case No. 410 of 2020, prior to the present case, under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354 (B), 307, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to the dispute both the sides received injuries and the injury caused by the petitioners were found to be simple in nature only a lacerated wound on the frontal region and month and left finger which was caused by a hard blunt substance, further petitioner no. 2 and 3 have no criminal antecedent.  

The Additional Public Prosecutor held that according to the facts and circumstances the petitioners have committed an assault on the informant however based on the injury report it is not controverted that the injury was simple in nature caused by a hard blunt substance.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that petitioner no. 2, namely, Rajeev Kumar and petitioner no. 3, namely, Prakash Kumar will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the  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 no. 2 and 3, (ii) that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behavior of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 and (iii) that they 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 no. 2 and 3, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no. 2 and 3. 12. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”

Click here to read the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat