Blog

The man claimed of making injury the witness side allowed pre-capture bail. It was claimed that the candidate alongside another open fire. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter of Dhiraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2086 of 2021].

The current facts of the case were that the candidate was captured regarding a Case documented under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 307, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The candidate alongside four others was asserted of terminating on the source. The candidate open shoot by gun and co-charged were affirmed to make injury the source.

The Learned Counsel called attention to that nobody was harmed during the terminating by the solicitor. Furthermore, it was presented that main Upendra Kumar has been ascribed to shooting on Suresh Kumar, who has experienced a slug injury. The applicant had no criminal predecessor and was presented that in a comparable instance of co-charged Kedar Yadav and Gorelal Yadav was allowed bail.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna fought that there has been a main omnibus claim that the request had discharged from the gun with practically no injury caused and that the solicitor had no other criminal forerunner. The court was leaned towards allowing a pre-capture bail. The appeal was arranged on the conditions that the applicant will help out the court, police, and arraignment. Any inability to the terms and fuse will prompt the wiping out of the bond. The pre-capture bail was allowed to the candidates in the wake of paying attention to the two players.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” …in case of capture or give up under the watchful eye of the Court underneath inside about a month and a half from today, the solicitor be delivered on bail after outfitting bail obligations of Rs. 25,000/ – (25 thousand) with two guarantees of the like sum each as per the general inclination of the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Jamui, in Sikandra PS Case No. 93 of 2020, dependent upon the conditions set down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further (I) that one of the bailors will be a direct relation of the candidate, (ii) that the solicitor and the bailors will execute security and give undertaking concerning acceptable conduct of the applicant and (iii) that the applicant will help out the Court and the police/indictment. Any infringement of the agreements of the securities or undertaking or inability to collaborate will prompt abrogation of his bail securities.”

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish