The petitioners apprehended arrest under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 379, “Punishment for theft”, section 307, “Murder attempt” and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”. The petition is in connection with Majhaulia PS Case No. 377 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020.
In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17th of September 2021 in the case of Awasar Dewan @ Asar Dewan and others Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3363 of 2021] Mr Nasrul Hoda Khan represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr Jharkhandi Upadhyay, represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Umesh Chandra Verma, represented as the advocate for the informant, 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 assaulting the informant and his brother, petitioner no.1 was accused of taking 1Kg. of apple from the cart of the informant and refused to pay and even abused him. Petitioner no.3 took Rs. 4,000 cash from the cart belonging to the informant and petitioner no.4 was accused only in general terms and does not have any specific overt act attributed to him.
The counsel representing petitioner no. 1,3 and 4 held that this entire scenario is a trivial issue and has been blown out of proportion associated with a mala fide intention. After investigation, it was held that the injury suffered by the informant was simple. The petitioners are not associated with any assault and they have no criminal antecedent as well.
The additional public prosecutor held that petitioner no.1 was guilty of taking away the apples belonging to the petitioner and failed to pay him the same and the and petitioner no.3 was guilty of taking away Rs. 4,000 cash and petitioner no.4 was party to this assault. The counsel representing the informant held that all the petitioners are brothers and had taken part in the assault. However, it is not controverted that the allegations are simple, general and omnibus. The specific allegation is against petitioner no.2 as he caused an injury damaging the skull and grievous injuries were sustained according to the CT scan however the petitioner no.2 is no more a petitioner as he already surrendered before the court.
The Honourable Court concluded that “Given the nature of the allegations as also that the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 do not have any criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner no. 1, 3, 4 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate. Under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the said petitioners, (ii) that the said petitioners and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking concerning good behaviour of the said and (iii) that the said petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”
Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham