Rizwi @ Rizwi Kasai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2991 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28049 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS Case No.-147 Year-2020 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna
      ======================================================

1. Rizwi @ Rizwi Kasai, aged about 47 years (Male).

2. Guddu @ Guddu Kasai, aged about 35 years (Male).

Both sons of Baratu Kasai.

3. Md. Shahid @ Shahin Kasai @ Md. Shahin, aged about 23 years (Male).

4. Md. Raja Kasai @ Md. Raja Quraishi, aged about 25 years (Male).

Both sons of Chunnu Kasai.

5. Saheb Kasai @ Md. Saheb, aged about 22 years (Male), Son of Jubbair Kasai @ Jubbair Quraishi.

6. Afridi Kasai @ Md. Afridi, aged about 18 years (Male), Son of Budha Kasai @ Budha Quraishi @ Anwar.

7. Md. Chunnu Kasai @ Md. Chunnu @ Chunnu Quraishi, aged about 65 years (Male), Son of Late Ganni Kasai @ Late Abdul Ganni Kasai.

8. Prince Kasai @ Prince, aged about 35 years (Male), Son of Baratu Kasai @ Baratu Quraishi.

9. Sabir Kasai @ Sabir Quraishi, aged about 45 years (Male), Son of Late Fahim Kasai @ Fahim Quraishi.

All Residents of Mohalla- Kasim Colony, Dargah Road, Police Station- Sultanganj, District- Patna.

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

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

      For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, Advocate
      For the State           :        Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
      For the Informant       :        Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, learned counsel for

the petitioners; Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

State and Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, learned counsel for the

informant.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Sultanganj PS Case No. 147 of 2020 dated 18.05.2020, instituted

under Sections 147/148/149/452/380/427/341/354/307/504/506 of

the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners and two named

and 100 other unknown persons, is that they were variously armed

with deadly weapons and had entered into the house of the

informant, damaged the motorcycle and property and looted

articles and specific against few of them is that they had taken

away jewellery and cash also. It is also alleged that the informant

and his family managed to save their lives by locking themselves

in a room.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

car of the son of the informant which he was driving had met with

an accident in which the daughter of the petitioner no. 3 had died

and due to this the people of the locality were protesting out of

rage and there was a crowd, as has been alleged in the FIR itself

of 100 of persons and it is but natural that the petitioner no. 3 and

his other family members who are resident of the same locality,

would have also expressed their anger, but the allegations are Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

totally false and unbelievable. It was submitted that as per the FIR

itself, the informant had rang up the police and they had come and

Sultanganj PS Case No. 146 of 2020 was lodged by them; both

relating to the same incident of 15.05.2020 and in that, the police

version is that they received call that there was arson by a mob at

the spot and when they reached there, they found that a mob was

trying to break into the house of the informant and more force had

to be called to bring the situation under control. It was submitted

that the present case has been lodged three days after the said

incident for the same incident, by the informant, just to create

pressure to compromise the other case, which is Traffic (Gandhi

Maidan) PS Case No. 51 of 2020, which has been filed for the

accident caused by the car of the son of the informant on

15.05.2020, leading to the death of the minor daughter of the

petitioner no. 3. It was, thus, submitted that the entire allegation

that the informant and his family were under threat and did not

approach the police for lodging the FIR is falsified since in the

FIR itself, it has been stated that on telephonic information, the

police had come and in fact, the police itself has also lodged

Sultanganj PS Case No. 146 of 2020, on the date of the accident

itself in which it has not been stated that the crowd had entered

into the house and damaged the property or had threatened the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

inmates. It was further contended that only the motorcycle which

was outside the house of the petitioners was vandalized by the

crowd, that too, without taking any specific name. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioners are not veteran and

hardened criminals and whatever happened was due to the

sentiments of the people where a minor girl was crushed to death

by the vehicle of the son of the informant and they were protesting

in front of the house of the informant, more so, in view of attitude

and conduct of the informant and his family in denying the

incident. Learned counsel submitted that no injury to any person

was caused as per the FIR itself and further, once the situation was

brought under control by the police on 15.05.2020 itself, the

allegation that the crowd had entered into the house and had

looted articles and life of the informant and his family members

were threatened, stands falsified, as no untoward/violent incident

occurred between 15.05.2020 till 18.05.2020, to justify that there

was any real or perceived threat to the informant or his family

members. It was submitted that the petitioner no. 6, Afridi Kasai

@ Md. Afridi is accused in one other case. Learned counsel took a

categorical stand that nobody has identified the petitioners on the

basis of CCTV footage and with regard to the reference to the

CCTV footage, it is the persons who have been named after Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

comparison, but the petitioners are not the persons who have been

named after comparison of the CCTV footage. It was submitted

that even that witness is not an independent witness as he is an

employee working in the press of the informant's son. Learned

counsel submitted that during investigation, there has been neither

any recovery of jewellery nor cash, which goes to show that the

allegations are false. It was submitted that no specific overt act has

been alleged against anyone by any witness and the allegations are

general and omnibus against more than 100 persons.

6. Learned APP, who was earlier asked to obtain the up-

to-date legible photo copy of the case diaries of the present case as

well as Sultanganj PS Case No. 146 of 2020, which was lodged by

the police for the same incident of 15.05.2020, submitted that

from the case diary, in the present case, the place of occurrence

has been described as the house of the informant where two

broken Godrej Almirahs have been found and on the terrace and in

the corridor, brickbats were found. However, in Sultanganj PS

Case No. 146 of 2020, there is description only of the outside road

where the mob had assembled and is said to have burnt the

motorcycle belonging to the informant's son. On a specific query

of the Court as to whether any injuries were caused to the police

personnel, he submitted that though in the FIR there is allegation Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

of injury and even there is statement of the injured constable, but

no injury report is on record. Learned APP submitted that in both

the cases, investigation is still going on and the police has not

submitted any report to the Court.

7. On a specific query of the Court as to whether any

independent witness has also supported the prosecution case,

learned APP submitted that it is only the close relatives of the

informant who have supported and no independent witness has

been examined by the police. On further query of the Court with

regard to the antecedent of the petitioners, it was submitted that in

both the cases, no antecedent report is available in the case diaries.

He submitted that from the CCTV footage all the petitioners have

been identified. However, learned APP did not controvert that

there has been no recovery of any cash or jewellery by the police.

8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the

petitioners have not truthfully disclosed their antecedent as they

have antecedent. In this connection, he submitted that the

petitioner no. 1 has not been sent up for trial in another case.

However, petitioner no. 2 is accused in Sultanganj PS Case No.

141 of 2012; petitioner no. 6 is accused of Alamganj PS Case No.

413 of 2018; petitioner no. 7 is accused of Sultanganj PS Case No.

317 of 2018; petitioner no. 8 is accused in Sultanganj PS Case No. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

317 of 2018 and petitioner no. 9 is also accused in Sultanganj PS

Case No. 317 of 2018. Continuing further, learned counsel

submitted that during police investigation, witnesses have

supported the prosecution story and the motorcycle of the

informant's son has been burnt, Almirah broken and cash and

jewellery taken away. Learned counsel submitted that witnesses

have supported the incident, especially witness Ahmad Raza, who

has identified the petitioners from the CCTV footage. Learned

counsel submitted that the spy has also identified petitioners no. 1

to 4 and 6 to 9.

9. On a quick response sought from learned counsel for

the petitioners at this juncture, he submitted that only petitioner

no. 6 is an accused in Sultanganj PS Case No. 413 of 2018,

whereas others have no criminal antecedent. He drew the attention

of the Court to the FIR and final report submitted by the police in

Sultanganj PS Case No. 317 of 2018, to contend that petitioners

no. 7, 8 and 9 have not been sent up for trial and, thus, they have

been exonerated by the police itself. Further, learned counsel for

the petitioners submitted that with regard to petitioner no. 6, he is

accused in Alamganj PS Case No. 413 of 2018, which was against

unknown, but later on his name had transpired and he has been

granted bail by the Court below itself.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

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

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

learned ACJM-II, Patna City in Sultanganj PS Case No. 147 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 petitioners, (ii) that the

petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good

behaviour of the petitioners, (iii) that the petitioners shall give an

undertaking to the Court that they shall not indulge in any

illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any law/statutory

provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses

and (iv) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and

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

the bonds or the undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to

cancellation of their bail bonds.

11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28049 of 2020 dt.05-07-2021

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

                     12.     The     petition      stands     disposed         off   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                                (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T