Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 406 (PAT)

Md Kudus v. State Of Bihar

2021-06-02

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2021
JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The matter has been heard out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners yesterday, which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. Nafisuzzoha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Satyanand Shukla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Chausa PS Case No. 114 of 2019 dated 30.04.2019, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307, 435, 379, 437, 524 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application on behalf of petitioners no. 2, 4 and 9 namely, Md. Hero @ Hiro; Md. Rihan @ Rihan and Md. Nikir @ Nikir, as they have been arrested. 6. In view thereof, the application on behalf of the aforesaid petitioners no. 2, 4 and 9 stands disposed off as withdrawn and is limited to petitioners no. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 namely, Md. Kudus; Md. Istiyaq @ Istiyaq; Md. Kalim @ Kalim; Bibi Saleha @ Saliya; Md. Rehan @ Rehan and Bibi Aaysha @ Aisa respectively. 7. The petitioners are accused of assaulting the informant and his family members resulting in injuries. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are next door neighbours and there is a piece of land between them for which there is long standing dispute between the parties and the present case is also a result of the same. It was submitted that for the same incident, there is a counter case filed by the petitioner no. 1, being Chousa PS Case No. 115 of 2019 dated 30.04.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the family members of the present informant. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against petitioners no. 1 and 5 is that they, along with others, had assaulted on the head but there is no specific allegation as to what overt act was committed by which of them and where the same had hit the victim. It was submitted that even in the case filed by the petitioner no. 1, there have been injuries. 1 and 5 is that they, along with others, had assaulted on the head but there is no specific allegation as to what overt act was committed by which of them and where the same had hit the victim. It was submitted that even in the case filed by the petitioner no. 1, there have been injuries. Learned counsel submitted that with regard to the other petitioners, there is no specific allegation and only against petitioner no. 3, it is of burning the house and with regard to others it is general and omnibus that they were also part of the persons who had attacked. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 9. Learned APP submitted that the victims have received injuries and there is allegation of assault on a vital part i.e., head, against petitioners no. 1 and 5. 10. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioners were the aggressors and they had tried to demolish the hut of the informant and had also burnt the same and further that at the stage of FIR, it is not required that details of exact blows hitting which part of the body is to be disclosed as it is only to set the investigation into motion and it is sufficient that petitioners no. 1 and 5 had assaulted and it is immaterial as to whose blow had actually hit, but the same has resulted in injuries on the head which has been noticed in the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st, Madhepura dated 18.08.2020 in ABP No. 478 of 2020, while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and two other persons. It was further submitted that there has been suppression of fact on the part of petitioners no. 1 and 5 as it has been written in the application that they too have clean antecedent, but the fact is that they are accused in Chousa PS Case No. 41 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, with regard to petitioners no. 3, 6, 7 and 8 it was not controverted that the allegations are in general and omnibus terms. 11. However, with regard to petitioners no. 3, 6, 7 and 8 it was not controverted that the allegations are in general and omnibus terms. 11. On a query of the Court to learned counsel for the petitioners, he fairly submitted that the person who had come with instructions and has affirmed the affidavit had not disclosed such fact. He apologized for non-mentioning of the same, if it was correct. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within eight weeks from today, petitioner no. 3 namely, Md. Istiyaq @ Istiyaq; petitioner no. 6 namely, Bibi Saleha @ Saliya; petitioner no. 7 namely, Md. Rehan @ Rehan and petitioner no. 8 namely, Bibi Aaysha @ Aisa, 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 SDJM, Udakishunganj at Madhepura in Chausa PS Case No. 114 of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, (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 bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the said petitioners and (iii) that the said petitioners shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the Court. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 13. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the said petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioners. 14. Prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioners no. 1 namely, Md. Kudus and petitioner no. 5 namely, Md. Kalim @ Kalim stands rejected. 15. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.