Alleged of open firing and killing the informant’s son in the name of caste rivalry denied bail as per Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code: High Court of Patna

Petitioners were alleged to open firing and killing the son of the informant. The petitioner tried furnishing the grounds that the same has been done by the opposite party and that they have been the rivalry castes and they didn’t have good relations in past as well. the petitioner was denied bail and the Court dismissed the appeal. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Lalan Yadav and Others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35568 of 2020]. 

The facts of the case were that the Petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. According to the petitioner, they arrived at the market area and began firing in the air and threatening others, after which they summoned other co-accused, and the informant’s son was hurt and died on the way to the hospital as a result of the indiscriminate firing. 

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the petitioners’ mother, she has also filed a lawsuit for the same incident. According to learned counsel, the police have now filed a third complaint in connection with the incident. The petitioners are brothers who have been wrongfully accused due to a disagreement between two castes. They had no involvement in the occurrence. It was also claimed that they had been accused because of the previous animosity. 

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the father of the deceased in normal circumstances would not blame the innocents for killing his son and try to save the real murderers. He further added,” allegation is against the present two petitioners with regard to their role in starting the whole episode and also making indiscriminate firing and even if it is assumed that the firing made by the petitioners may not have hit the deceased, the same is irrelevant as they were very much party to the firing and thus, the responsibility for the death has to be equally taken by all the accused, including the petitioners.” 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” 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 petitioners.” The petition was dismissed and petitioners were allowed to again apply for the pray of bail in the future and the same shall be considered on its own merits.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Leave a Reply

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

Open chat