0

The Court declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as he was arrested under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, and 506/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: High court of Patna

 The petitioner was arrested under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 307, “Attempt to murder”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”, section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 34 IPC, “Acts have done by several persons in furtherance of common intention” and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, “Punishment for using arms, whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” This present petition is in connection with Muffasil PS Case No. 116 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020.

In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 21st of August 2021 in the case of Md Irshad versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 12365 of 2021 Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha Represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Niranjan Parihar 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 and others have been accused of entering the house of the informant and abused and threatened to withdraw the case filed by the nephew of the informant against the petitioners and they further assaulted the informant with an iron rod and the petitioner especially was accused of firing with his gun which is a violation under the arms act which hit the inside wall after breaking the window glass.

The counsel for the petitioner held that the FIR was lodged almost 3 hours before the incident and the delay for the same was no explained. The petitioners have also filed a case against the informant however there has been no injury caused to anyone despite the scuffle and the petitioners have been falsely implicated for the same.

The additional public prosecutor held that according to the FIR, it clearly indicated the petitioner has mens rea which is motive and intention to commit this crime as they were also accused by an earlier case filed by the nephew of the informant and they used force and exerted pressure to withdraw the case. Further, the APP held that after investigation they have recovered an empty cartridge which proves the incident was done mala fide.  Regarding the delay in the FIR, which was lodged by the informant it was lodged at 9:45 AM on the 14th May 2020 and the incident took place at 8:30 AM, whereas the petitioner’s lodged an FIR with a delay of almost 24 hours and therefore it is inapplicable to grant bail for the same.

The court concluded that “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.  Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.”

Click here to read the judgment

Leave a Reply

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

Open chat