0

The petitioners were released on bail after being arrested under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.: High court of Patna

The petitioner was taken into custody under Sections 147, “ Punishment for rioting”, section 148, “Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon”, section 149, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense commit­ted in the prosecution of a common object”, section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, “Attempt to murder”, 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 connected with Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur) PS Case No. 97 of 2020.

In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 26th of August 2021 in the case of Dayal Yadav @ Deepak Kumar and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 14137 of 2021 Mr. Sandeep Kumar, represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Lakshmi Sharma 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 were accused of being part of two groups who were using illegal arms and indulged in firing at each other and when the police arrived at the spot, the groups which included the petitioners had run away from the spot possessing an empty cartridge of .315 bore was recovered.

The counsel representing the petitioner held that the FIR that was filed made no sense and cannot be relied upon since if there is incriminate firing between two groups how come only one empty cartridge is found. further, the counsel held that the informant approached many police constables and an SHO (station house officer) himself it is not believable that he could not catch even one person as the incident took place in the afternoon in full daylight. However, the identification of the 10 petitioners was based on assumption as the names of the petitioners were transpired during the course of inquiry they were accused and no valuable source has been indicated. And the counsel held that the FIR is vague and general and not based on any cogent evidence and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and there has been no injury caused to any person.

The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been in custody as their names were present in the FIR. However, the APP held that it is not controverted that this recovery of only one empty cartridge of .315 bore and there is no injury alleged to any person.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “since there is the recovery of just one empty cartridge and no injury caused to any person, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 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 ACJM -I, in connection with PS Case No. 97 of 2020, under Section 438(2) of the 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 bond with regard to 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 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