Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 538 (PAT)

Virendra Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2021-07-01

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2021
JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State. 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Purnahia PS Case No. 72 of 2020 dated 17.06.2020, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324,307, 447, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioners and other coaccused is that they had assaulted the informant causing injury and specifically against co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh that he assaulted the informant by means of farsa on his head and that the petitioners are said to have assaulted him by means of lathi and further against co-accused Shivam Kumar is that he snatched gold chain worth Rs. 70,000/- from the neck of the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are agnates and the dispute is with regard to the petitioners putting a pillar on their own land which was objected to and for which the petitioner no. 1 has instituted Purnahia PS Case No. 71 of 2020 under Sections 323, 341, 279, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code prior in time to the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the injury report of the informant in the present case, three injuries have been found, one on the head, but all have been found to be simple in nature. It was submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Further, learned counsel submitted that the so-called main accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh, who is said to have inflicted farsa blow on the head and there is injury also on the head, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Court below itself whereas unfortunately, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been rejected. 6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners have also assaulted. However, it was not controverted that the same is general and omnibus and that too by lathi, whereas against co- accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh, who is not before the Court, the allegation is of inflicting farsa blow on the head of the informant. 7. 6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners have also assaulted. However, it was not controverted that the same is general and omnibus and that too by lathi, whereas against co- accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh, who is not before the Court, the allegation is of inflicting farsa blow on the head of the informant. 7. 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 six weeks from today, the petitioners 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, Sheohar in Purnahia PS Case No. 72 of 2020, 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 petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners and (iii) that they 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. 8. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 9. The petition stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.