Kaishar Raja @ Md. Quaisar Raza vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3955 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23248 of 2021
   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2020 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
 ======================================================

Kaishar Raja @ Md. Quaisar Raza (male), aged about 20 years, Son of Parwez Alam @ Md. Parwez Alam Resident of Village- Mahendrapur, Ward No.2, P.S.- Purnia Muffasil, District- Purnia (Bihar)

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Madhav Roy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Purnea Sadar PS Case No. 164 of 2020 dated 07.05.2020,

instituted under Sections 147/148/341/323/307/379/504/506 of

the Indian Penal Code.

4. This is the second attempt for seeking pre-arrest bail

by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by common

judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 in the case of seven

persons, including the petitioner, in Cr. Misc. No. 25371 of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23248 of 2021 dt.04-08-2021

2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as

would be clear from the order dated 04.11.2020, the Court was

persuaded by the submission of learned APP that there was

direct allegation of assault on the head which is corroborated by

the injury report against the present petitioner and against others

it was general and omnibus. It was submitted that such

submission was erroneous as in the FIR itself it has been stated

that the petitioner had caught hold of the informant and had

started assaulting him but thereafter it has been stated that co-

accused Md. Sakib, who was having iron rod in his hand had hit

the informant on the head resulting in injury and bleeding. It

was submitted that from the injury report of the informant, copy

of which has been made Annexure-4, it is clear that only one

lacerated wound on the right parietal region has been found

which is specifically attributed to co-accused Md. Sakib and not

the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that all the petitioners in

Cr. Misc. No. 25371 of 2020 were on similar footing and only

the prayer of the petitioner, out of seven petitioners therein, was

rejected by making such distinction, which is an error of record.

6. Learned APP could not controvert the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23248 of 2021 dt.04-08-2021

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds that the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner is factually correct as specifically in the FIR, only a

general statement has been made that the petitioner caught hold

of the informant and had started beating him but specially

against co-accused Md. Sakib it is alleged that he gave iron rod

blow on the head of the informant and the injury report

discloses only one lacerated wound on the parietal region. Thus,

the Court finds that all the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 25371 of

2020 stand on similar footing as far as the allegation is

concerned.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court finds that

since the injury on the informant being only one, that too, on the

head, which is specifically attributed to co-accused Md. Sakib

and not the petitioner and further that since similarly situated

co-accused have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, the

Court is inclined to allow the prayer.

9. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23248 of 2021 dt.04-08-2021

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Purnia in Purnia Sadar PS Case No. 164 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 petitioner, (ii) that the

petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond and give

undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner, and

(iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the

police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of

the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to

cancellation of his bail bonds.

10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring

any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the

petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

11. The petition stands disposed of in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T