Patna High Court
Ghanshyam Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 27621 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2020 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Ghanshyam Thakur, Male, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Bhumi Thakur.
2. Rajeev Kumar, Male, aged about 28 years, Son of Ram Sharan Thakur.
3. Pratush Kumar, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Ram Sharan Thakur.
All are resident of village- Kurmi Tola, Ward No.- 13, PS- Gogari, District-
Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-08-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of
motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on
26.07.2021, which was allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP')
for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner no. 1, namely, Ghanshyam Thakur has been arrested
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27621 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021
and, thus, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition on his
behalf.
5. In view thereof, the petition on behalf of petitioner
no. 1, namely, Ghanshyam Thakur, stands disposed of as
withdrawn and is restricted to petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely,
Rajeev Kumar and Pratush Kumar.
6. The petitioners no. 2 and 3 apprehend arrest in
connection with Gogari PS Case No. 411 of 2020 dated
22.11.2020, instituted under Sections 448, 341, 323, 504, 506,
307, 324, 354(A), 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The allegation against the petitioners and two others
is of assault on the informant side resulting in injuries and specific
against the petitioners no. 2 and 3 that they assaulted the brother
of the informant, namely, Bilash Mahto with lathi and danda on
his mouth and head and against petitioner no. 1, that he also fled
away with gold ornaments worth Rs. 3 lakhs.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 2 and 3
submitted that as per the FIR itself, the parties are neighbours and
due to land dispute, they have been falsely implicated in the
present case. It was submitted that earlier in the year 2011, the
father of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 had filed a case before the
authorities against the petitioners for demarcation of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27621 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021
boundary and order was passed for such demarcation and due to
the same, the dispute is continuing. It was submitted that for the
same incident, the wife of the petitioner no. 1 has filed Gogari PS
Case No. 410 of 2020, prior to the present case, under Sections
448, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354 (B), 307, 379/34 of the Indian
Penal Code. It was submitted that both the sides have received
injuries and the injury which is said to have been caused by the
petitioners no. 2 and 3 on Bilash Mahto has been found to be
simple in nature as only lacerated wound on frontal region,
lacerated wound on left side of angle of mouth and lacerated
wound on left little finger has been noted which are simple in
nature caused by hard blunt substance. It was submitted that the
injury of petitioner no. 2 in fact has been found to be grievous
after CT scan. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners no. 2
and 3 have no other criminal antecedent.
9. Learned APP submitted that the allegation of assault
is against the petitioners. However, in view of the injury report,
copy of which has been brought on record, it was not controverted
that there is simple injury caused on the victim Bilash Mahto by
hard blunt substance.
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27621 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021
Court finds substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioners no. 2 and 3. There being previous land dispute and the
parties being neighbours, as has been admitted in the FIR itself, as
also there being a counter case for the same incident and injuries
on both the sides and further the injury on the victim who is
alleged to have been assaulted by the petitioners no. 2 and 3, being
simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance, in the event of
arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from
today, the petitioner no. 2, namely, Rajeev Kumar and petitioner
no. 3, namely, Pratush Kumar 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, Khagaria in Gogari PS Case No. 411 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 no. 2 and 3, (ii)
that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 and the bailors shall execute bond
and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the
petitioners no. 2 and 3 and (iii) that they shall co-operate with the
Court and police/prosecution. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27621 of 2021 dt.03-08-2021
11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any
violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners no.
2 and 3, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take
immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners no. 2 and 3.
12. The petition stands disposed of in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
