Deepak Yadav @ Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4038 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10284 of 2021
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2020 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
 ======================================================

Deepak Yadav @ Deepak Kumar, aged 34 years (Male), son of Late Chunchun Yadav, resident of village -Bank, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist.- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate with
                                  Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
 For the State           :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
 For the Informant       :        Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-08-2021

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 petitioner on

03.08.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior

counsel along with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional

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

State and Mr. Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for the informant.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Muffasil PS Case No. 194 of 2020 dated 19.08.2020, instituted

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10284 of 2021 dt.10-08-2021

Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

5. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of

assault on the informant and other persons during course of

Panchayati.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted

that as per the FIR itself, during course of Panchayati relating to

land dispute, the incident is said to have occurred. He submitted

that there is also a counter case for the same incident and the

sequence of events narrated in the counter case have not been

explained in the present case, inasmuch as, injury suffered by

the petitioner's side has not been explained. It was submitted

that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against

the accused persons and specifically against the petitioner, it is

stated that he fired from his pistol on the victim Shambhu

Yadav, who is also the informant, on his head, but he managed

to avoid the same and the bullet had hit him on his leg. Learned

senior counsel drew the attention of the Court to the injury

report of the said Shambhu Yadav and submitted that the same

discloses that there was lacerated wound behind left knee and

the nature of the injury is said to be simple but caused by

dangerous firearm weapon/gun shot. It was further submitted

that the report also discloses that there was no evidence of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10284 of 2021 dt.10-08-2021

grievous injury. It was contended by learned senior counsel that

the incident occurred due to aggression from the informant's

side and the petitioner's side has also suffered serious injury. It

was submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal

antecedent and he is in employment being Havildar Instructor in

Home Guard and Fire Services, Bihar. Learned counsel

submitted that the law has been clarified by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT

of Delhi), 2020(1) PLJR (SC) 524, the relevant being at

paragraph no. 76, that parameters for grant of regular bail and

anticipatory bail should be the same and no distinction should

be made between the two. It was further submitted that if at all,

the allegation is accepted to be true, the same has resulted only

in lacerated wound behind the knee which clearly indicates that

it was on a non-vital part and also the wound is superficial and

simple in nature.

7. Learned APP submitted that as per the allegation,

the petitioner used firearm which has resulted in injury on the

informant.

8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

the petitioner was also party to the abduction of another victim,

namely, Ravi Raj, upon whom, co-accused, Jai Raj Yadav @ Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10284 of 2021 dt.10-08-2021

Gautam Yadav, had fired on the neck which is corroborated by

the injury report. It was submitted that the injury report of the

informant clearly shows blackening of the margin and X-ray

was advised, but there is no report of the X-ray and further, the

nature of injury has been shown to be by dangerous firearm

weapon/gun shot and the attempt by the petitioner was to cause

serious damage as he had used firearm and it was the good

fortune of the informant that he was saved and it did not cause

any major damage, but such fortuitous circumstances cannot

lead to grant of benefit to the petitioner for he had tried his best

to cause damage by firing on the head and the informant had

been able to save himself from such assault. Learned counsel

submitted that the fact that the petitioner being employed in

Home Guard and Fire Services and committing such offence,

itself is a serious thing and the witnesses have also supported

the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the present is not a

fit case even for regular bail, much less anticipatory bail, as the

firing caused by the petitioner has resulted in injury and the

Court, at this stage, may not go into the seriousness of the injury

as the mere fact that firing has been made itself discloses the

intention to cause serious damage and it was not because of the

petitioner that simple injury was caused, since it was the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10284 of 2021 dt.10-08-2021

informant, who had managed to save himself from any serious

damage of which the benefit cannot be taken by the petitioner.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

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

Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP and

learned counsel for the informant. At this stage, when the

allegation is of firing against the petitioner, which is

corroborated by the injury report, the Court would not weigh the

pros and cons or the seriousness of the injury.

10. For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to

grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T