Patna High Court
Banwari Sahni vs The State Of Bihar on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20047 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2019 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Banwari Sahni (Male), aged about 60 years, son of Bhadai Sahni, resident of
Badar Jimi, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-04-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Mirganj PS Case No. 62 of 2019 dated 09.03.2019, instituted
under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is specifically
of causing injury to the daughter of the informant on the head by
garansa.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is a poor man and there was land dispute between
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20047 of 2020 dt.07-04-2021
the parties and he is in custody since 24.12.2019. It was
submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has
no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submitted that only
charges have been framed in the case. It was further submitted
that the allegation is of attack by garansa, but the injury report
discloses that injury was caused by hard and blunt substance.
6. Learned APP submitted that earlier the Court had
called for the injury report, which has been received and
discloses wound of 3"x1/4"x bone deep on the right frontal
region, which is vital part of the body and the specific allegation
of causing such injury is against the petitioner. Learned APP
further drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-1, which is a
common order in the case of the petitioner and seven others
dated 16.11.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 43015 of 2019 by which
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected and the Court had
noted that the injury caused on the daughter of the informant
was bone deep on the head and, thus, prayer for anticipatory bail
was rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the plea of the
injury report stating the use of hard and blunt substance is not
contradicted by the allegation of blow of garansa for the reason
that even the said weapon garansa has two sides; one is sharp
and one is blunt. Thus, it is very much possible that blow was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20047 of 2020 dt.07-04-2021
made by the blunt side, but the injury is on the frontal region
and bone deep, which is very serious and it was only the good
fortune of the victim that she was saved. Further, it was
contended that mere use of such weapon for attack clearly
indicates that the intention of the petitioner was to cause serious
injury to the victim.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
9. However, the Court below is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude it preferably within one year.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
