Patna High Court
Pulish Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35485 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2018 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Pulish Rai, age 46 years (Male), son of late Saryug Rai, resident of village -
Allipur Hutta, P.S.- Mahanar, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-07-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Mahanar PS Case No. 217 of 2018 dated 26.08.2018, instituted
under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 379 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner along with others is accused of
assault on the informant side and specifically against the
petitioner, of inflicting iron rod blow on the hand of the
informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35485 of 2020 dt.20-07-2021
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
though as per the allegation, the assault was on the hand and a
fracture has also been found in the X-ray, but the informant side
were the aggressors as has come during investigation. Learned
counsel submitted that it is not alleged that the petitioner gave
repeated blows which shows that there was no intention to cause
any serious harm and because of there being scuffle, in the heat
of the moment, injuries have been sustained by both the sides.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's side had also
lodged a counter case for the same incident. It was submitted
that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel
submitted that he may be given some time to take instructions as
to whether the matter has been settled/compromised between the
parties. It was submitted that from the FIR itself it is clear that it
was the informant's side, which had come to confront the
petitioner's side as to why they had lodged a complaint with the
Superintendent of Police against them. Learned counsel
submitted that the present case is counter blast to Mahnar PS
Case No. 223 of 2018 in which the fardbeyan of the petitioner
was recorded in the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, on 26.08.2018 at
10.00 AM and thereafter this case has been lodged on
26.08.2018 by the informant. Learned counsel submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35485 of 2020 dt.20-07-2021
the present case has been instituted on the basis of a written
complaint and the incident alleged is of a day prior i.e.,
25.08.2018 and for the delay, there is no explanation. Learned
counsel submitted that the parties are agnates and there is land
dispute and on the petitioner's side, injury is grievous, whereas,
on the informant's side, except for one injury i.e., fracture of the
hand, other injuries are simple in nature and most importantly,
the petitioner himself being injured, if at all, had committed
some overt act, it was to protect himself, which would be clear
from Mahnar PS Case No. 223 of 2018. Learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
6. At this juncture, when the Court asked learned
counsel for the petitioner as to what were his instructions as he
had taken time to know whether the matter has been
settled/compromised between the parties, he submitted that
despite the best effort of the petitioner, as a Title Suit is pending
between the parties, the informant's side is not ready for any
settlement.
7. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that
witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However, it was
not controverted that the place of occurrence is at the house of
the petitioner. It was also not controverted that except for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35485 of 2020 dt.20-07-2021
fracture on the hand of the informant, all other injuries are
simple in nature as also the fact that independent witnesses have
stated that even the informant had attacked the petitioner by iron
rod and he had sustained injuries.
8. 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 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 ACJM-VI, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Mahnar PS Case
No. 217 of 2018, 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 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 cooperate with the
Court and the police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and
conditions of the bonds or undertaking or failure to cooperate
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35485 of 2020 dt.20-07-2021
petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take
immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
10. The petition stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
