The petitioner was arrested under sections 341 IPC, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 353 “Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty”, section 384 “Punishment for extortion”, section 504 “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506 “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 379 “Punishment for theft”, section 427 IPC, “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.” This is in connection with Dhaka PS Case No. 438 of 2019 dated 21.11.2019.
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 5th of August 2021 in the case of Zahid Anwar Alias and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37157 of 2020, Mr. Zaki Haider Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Asha Devi 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 petitioner was accused of abusing the informant who is the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Dhaka. As the informant went to remove the encroachment, the petitioner snatched the key from the informant’s vehicle and tore the papers in his office, and threatened the employees that if they came into the office they would be killed.
The counsel for the petitioner held that the petitioner is a fruit seller and owns a licensed shop and has been falsely implicated under this scenario. This incident was said to have taken place on 21.11.2019 however the informant was the one who visited the shop of the petitioner and demanded Rs. 4 lakhs for his marriage when the petitioner refused, he snatched various fruit packets and the employees have lodged a complaint Case No. 363 of 2019, before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Dhaka on 23.11.2019. Further, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and after investigation no such allegations against the petitioner were true. The three witnesses who support the claim made by the informant are his assistances and driver. According to the FIR, it states that the petitioner tore the documents and caused a ruckus however the employees don’t state the same which proves the prosecution case also has mala fide intention.
The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioner created an obstacle while the informant was performing his duty of removing the encroachment and was also accused of threatening the employees who have filed a complaint however it is not controverted that no mention about torn documents was made initially later such allegations were developed.
The court held that, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution story contradicts itself with regard to the petitioner tearing up the documents as the written complaint does not disclose the same, the fact that a single man can create such a nuisance during daylight In the office of the informant seems unrealistic, and the FIR is unreliable. Thus, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer.
The court concluded that “The petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM in PS Case No. 438 of 2019, 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 and (iii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”