The petitioners were released on bail after being apprehended under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, and 506IPC as they acted in self-defence: High court of Patna
This is in connection with Daudpur PS Case No.169 of 2020 dated 18.07.2020. The petitioners were arrested under section 147IPC, “Punishment for rioting”, section 149 “ Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in the prosecution of a common object”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 379, “Punishment for theft”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” and section 506 IPC, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”.
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of August 2021 in the case of Algu Mian @ Hanif Mian and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.19508 of 2021, Mr. Radha Mohan Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Rina represented 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 others were accused of being armed variously and had assaulted the informant side, the assault was on the head and the rest were general and omnibus.
The counsel for the petitioner held that according to the injury reports it was disclosed that the informants and others had simple injuries except for injury no.1 on Babunand Singh was held to be grievous and the rest was considered general. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent. The counsel held that there is the counter case made by the petitioners against the informant in Daudpur PS Case No. 168 of 2020 which states that even the petitioner sustained injuries, the venue of the crime was held to be at the house of the accused whereas at this present case the venue was at the house of another co-villager which proves the falsity because it was transpired after investigation the officer held that the place of occurrence was at the house of the accused even at the present case, which clearly indicates the informants approached the house of the accused wanting ten thousand rupees which were already decided in the favour of the petitioners by the authorities. Proving the informant to be the aggressor. In both the mentioned cases there was a free-fight. There is no fracture or anything regarding the skull that has been found which shows that it was caused by a hard blunt substance.
The Additional Public Prosecutor held that in both the cases even though the place of occurrence was filed to be at the co-villager house it was not controverted that after investigation the place of occurrence was actually the house of the accused and the dispute arose due to decision made by the Panchayati. According to the counsel for the informant, it was held that petitioners were guilty of assault by using a sword and knife on the head of the informant. However, it is not controverted that the injury was simple in nature according to the reports caused by a hard blunt substance.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that attack from the side of the petitioners may have been spontaneous and more as a matter of defense and therefore the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the Judicial Magistrate under 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 the bond and give an undertaking with regard to the good behaviour of the petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the 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 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. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”
Click here to read the judgment