Manish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1087 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31677 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2020 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali
     ======================================================

1. Manish Kumar, male, aged about 22 years old, Son of Late Suresh Rai

2. Ramesh Kumar, male, aged about 22 years old, Son of Anup Lal Rai

3. Santosh Kumar, male, aged about 19 years old, Son of Ravindra Rai All Resident of Village and P.O.- Piroi, P.S.- Goraul, District - Vaishali

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

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

     For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate
     For the State            :       Ms. Sucheta Yadav, APP
     For the Informant        :       Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-02-2021

Heard Mr. Ram Shankar Das, learned counsel for the

petitioners; Ms. Sucheta Yadav, learned Additional Public

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

and Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Goraul PS Case No. 144 of 2020 dated 24.04.2020, instituted

under Sections 147/148/149/302/323/447/448/342/323/324 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners and others is

that they had assaulted the son of the informant due to some

land dispute resulting in his death later on in the Hospital during Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31677 of 2020 dt.22-02-2021

the course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

they have been falsely implicated as the incident is of

19.04.2020, but the FIR has been lodged after delay on

24.04.2020, for which there is no explanation. Learned counsel

submitted that on that day, there was fight between the

informant side and the petitioners' side and the police had to

intervene and three persons were caught, including the

deceased, but the police had released all the accused and during

the course of treatment the son of the informant died but

surprisingly, for such a grave incident, no information was given

to the police. It was submitted that from the informant side the

local police was informed but they refused to institute FIR and

the informant side had also communicated directly to the

Superintendent of Police, Vaishali but no action was taken.

Learned counsel submitted that though the post-mortem

discloses injuries on the body, but in the FIR no specific overt

act is alleged against the petitioners or any person and in a huge

crowd who had hit where cannot be said with certainty and the

petitioners deserve indulgence.

5. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR itself it is

clear that the deceased received injuries and the petitioners were Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31677 of 2020 dt.22-02-2021

very much part of the mob which had inflicted those injuries. It

was further submitted that for the purposes of FIR, the details

are not required and further it is only during trial when

witnesses will be examined, the role of each person can be

ascertained, but for the present, the whole crowd shall be

deemed to be responsible for the incident and the death.

6. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

the informant had gone to her parents' place as the informant's

parents had only daughters and the accused had wanted the land

of the father of the informant to be given to them which she was

resisting leading to this incident. It was further submitted that

even from the newspaper cutting it is clear that there was fight

between two sides which makes it obvious that the injuries

received by the deceased was due to such fight in which the

accused, that is, the petitioners were the other side. Learned

counsel submitted that even with regard to delay, because the

police themselves had asked the informant to take her son for

better treatment, it was the slackness on the part of the police

and further that even with regard to the allegation that the

accused side had also complained but no FIR was lodged, they

had made a complaint much later than the informant. It was

submitted that one of the co-accused Sushil Kumar @ Raja Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31677 of 2020 dt.22-02-2021

Prasad has been denied regular bail by this Court on 08.01.2021

in Cr. Misc. No. 30054 of 2020. It was further submitted that the

petitioners carry criminal antecedent.

7. 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 petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. However, if the petitioners appear before the Court

below and pray for bail, within four weeks from today, the same

shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law,

without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T