The petitioners were released on bail after being arrested under sections 188, 269, 323, 447, 307, 353, and 504/34IPC: High court of Patna
The petitioners were arrested under section 188 IPC, “Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant”, section 269, “Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 447, “Punishment for criminal trespass”, and sections 307, 353 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with Muffasil PS Case No. 113 of 2020 dated 01.05.2020.
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 6th of August 2021 in the case of Tuntun Kuma and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 6569 of 2021, Mr. Bimal Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar 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, according to the FIR, the informant is a constable got hold of some boys because they were assembling during the lock-down period and smoking cigarettes, and as the result, the boys assaulted the constable with a brick and injured him, two persons were arrested for the same, their motorcycle was detained there has been allegations that 10- 15 villagers which included the petitioners, they freed the arrested illegally and took them away from the custody of the police.
The counsel for the petitioners held that the petitioners who have been accused are falsely implicated as there is no justification for the same and they had no role in the incident. Even the name of the police has not been disclosed the petitioners were merely accused of the allegation of taking the arrested boys along with the other villagers and no overt act has been made. One of the arrested boys has been given anticipatory bail order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2902 of 2021. Further, the counsel held that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent.
The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners were a party to help the accused escape from custody of the police illegally and are guilty of the offense.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions, the court held that the petitioners 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, in connection with PS Case No. 113 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond concerning the good behavior 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 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.”