Zahid Anwar Alias Jahid Anwar ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3964 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37157 of 2020
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2019 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
 ======================================================

Zahid Anwar Alias Jahid Anwar Alias Dabloo, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Dabir Ahamad, Resident of Village Chainpur Dhaka, PS- Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Zaki Haider, Advocate
 For the State           :        Ms. Asha Devi, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Zaki Haider, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Asha Devi, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Dhaka PS Case No. 438 of 2019 dated 21.11.2019, instituted

under Sections 341, 353, 384, 504, 506, 379 and 427 of the Indian

Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that when

the informant, who is the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad,

Dhaka went to remove encroachment, he was abused and the

key of his vehicle was forcibly snatched and he had come to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37157 of 2020 dt.05-08-2021

office and had torn papers and had threatened the employees not

to come to the office otherwise they would be killed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

is a fruit seller and has a licensed shop allotted to him by the

Nagar Parishad, Dhaka and has been falsely implicated. It was

submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on

21.11.2019, but on that day, the informant had come to the shop

of the petitioner when he was not there and had demanded Rs. 4

lakhs as he was getting married and on refusal, he had

threatened him and had also forcibly taken away packets of

various fruits, for which the employee of the petitioner has

lodged Complaint Case No. 363 of 2019, before the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Dhaka on

23.11.2019. It was submitted that the petitioner has no criminal

antecedent. He submitted that during investigation, it has come

that no such incident had taken place and the allegations are

false. It was submitted that during investigation, only three

witnesses have supported the case and all are interested witness

inasmuch as two are Assistants in the office of the informant, who

is the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad, Dhaka and the

third one is his driver. It was submitted that the incident is said to

have taken place during day time in the presence of many persons Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37157 of 2020 dt.05-08-2021

of the public and, according to learned counsel, many independent

witnesses who were there had also given their statement which did

not support the prosecution story but the same has not been

incorporated by the police in the case diary with mala fide

intention and oblique reasons just to support the case filed by the

Executive Officer. Learned counsel submitted that though in the

FIR, it has been stated that the petitioner had gone to the office of

the informant and had threatened and also torn papers which was

reported to the informant, but the complaint of the employees,

which is part of the FIR, does not state that any document was

snatched, much less torn, which clearly falsifies the prosecution

case and also proves that with mala fide intention, the case has

been lodged. It was submitted that because the three witnesses

examined are all office employees of the informant, they have

developed the story before the police in their statement and have

added that papers were torn by the petitioner, but there also, there

is contradiction as the informant has stated that the papers were

torn and thrown in the water but the witness has stated that the

papers were torn but he was not aware where it was thrown.

6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the

petitioner has not only created obstacle in the duty of the

informant while he had gone there to remove encroachment but Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37157 of 2020 dt.05-08-2021

had also gone to the Nagar Parishad, Dhaka and had threatened

the employees and they had given a written complaint to the

informant which is part of the FIR. However, it was not

controverted that in the complaint, there is no mentioning about

any tearing of papers and also that later in the statement they have

developed the allegation of the petitioner having torn papers in the

office of the Nagar Parishad, Dhaka.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

finds that there are contradictions in the prosecution story,

especially with regard to the role of the petitioner of tearing the

official papers where the written complaint does not disclose such

fact and still it has been incorporated in the FIR and later the

signatories to the complaint have also developed the story to

include the allegation of the petitioner tearing papers and

moreover, the fact that one person could go and create such

nuisance, both at the site as well as in the office of the Nagar

Parishad, Dhaka when obviously, there would have been a police

force for removing encroachment and even in the office all the

employees were there, indicate that the allegations, as made in the

FIR, may not be reliable. However, the Court would not like to

give a finding as it is for the trial Court to go into such details Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37157 of 2020 dt.05-08-2021

when evidence would be produced, but for the purposes of

forming a tentative view, the Court finds that the petitioner has

been able to make out a case for interference. Thus, the Court is

inclined to allow the prayer.

8. 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 amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Sikrahana at Dhaka

District East Champaran in Dhaka PS Case No. 438 of 2019,

subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, 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 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

his bail bonds.

9. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37157 of 2020 dt.05-08-2021

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

                         10.   The    petition     stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                                 (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)


P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T