The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 147, of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for rioting”, Section 149, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in the prosecution of a common object”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” and Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “Attempt to commit culpable homicide.” The petition is in connection with Fatehpur PS Case No. 315 of 2018 dated 13.10.2018.
In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17th of September 2021 in the case of Bhola Paswan Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5538 of 2021], Mr S S P Yadav represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, 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 along with five named and seven unknown persons were accused of assaulting the informant, specifically against the petitioner as he inflicted a blow on the head of the informant with a lathi resulting in injuries and also hit the hand of the informant resulting in a fracture of the right hand.
The counsel representing the petitioner held that the father of the petitioner has also filed for a counter case Fatehpur [PS Case No. 316 of 2018], under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 504, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The counsel held that the informant’s daughter had committed suicide about a month back and the petitioner’s side was accused and the father of the petitioner was branded as a daain. However, the informant’s side were aggressors and they committed an assault on the petitioner as he had sustained head injuries and the mother of the petitioner suffered a fracture due to the assault. The dispute arose due to different castes however the issue has now been compromised by the parties themselves and the same has been filed as a supplementary affidavit as a record before the court. Further, the counsel held that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
The counsel for the petitioner held that the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Gaya, in his order dated 13.10.2020 passed in ABP [No. 4085 of 2019] rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail for the petitioner due to the injury report however the type of injury was not stated. The counsel prays for bail as a compromise has been established between the parties and such a compromise was made without any threat or coercion and the informant himself is unwilling to pursue the case.
The additional public prosecutor submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya has also sent a report which shows that the parties have compromised the matter and peace is prevailing in the area.
Therefore the Honourable Court concluded that “Given there being peace between the parties and they have voluntarily compromised the matter by filing joint compromise petition in both the cases in February 2021 itself and peace being restored in the area, for the ends of justice, the Court deems it appropriate to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail so that peace between the parties is sustained as otherwise if any side suffers adverse consequences, there are chances of the enmity between the sides reviving. The petitioner is released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”
Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham