Patna High Court
Md Irshad vs The State Of Bihar on 24 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12365 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2020 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Md Irshad, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Mohd Jameel, Resident of
Village - Banaudha, PS- Muffasil, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Niranjan Parihar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-08-2021
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, which was
allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Parihar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Muffasil PS Case No. 116 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020, instituted
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12365 of 2021 dt.24-08-2021
5. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that
they had come to the house of the informant and had abused and
threatened to withdraw the case filed by the nephew of the
informant against the accused persons and thereafter, of having
assaulted by iron rod and specifically against the petitioner is that
he had fired, which hit the inside wall after breaking the window
glass.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they
had earlier filed Muffisil PS Case No. 115 of 2020 against the
informant and others. It was submitted that no injury has been
caused to anybody. It was submitted that the FIR has been lodged
after almost three hours of the incident.
7. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR itself, it is
clear that the accused, including the petitioner, had real motive to
commit the crime as they were accused in the earlier case filed by
the nephew of the informant and for getting the same withdrawn,
they had tried to exert undue pressure. It was further submitted
that the allegation in the FIR is corroborated by recovery of empty
cartridge. As far as the other case is concerned, it was submitted,
that the same has to be seen on its own merits. Moreover, it was
submitted that the present FIR has been lodged at 9:45 AM on
14.05.2020, and the time of the incident is said to be 8:30 AM,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12365 of 2021 dt.24-08-2021
whereas the petitioner's side had filed the case on 14.05.2020 at
9:30 AM for an incident which is said to have taken place between
4:00 PM on 12.05.2020 and 10:00 AM on 13.05.2020 and, thus,
the delay in lodging of the said case is almost 24 hours.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
