Fuleshwar Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3657 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37744 of 2020
            Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2020 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali
      ======================================================

1. Fuleshwar Rai, aged 47 years, Male son of Hari Rai.

2. Sanjay Kumar @ Chunnu, aged 29 years, Male.

3. Braj Kishor Rai @ Munna, aged about 30 years, Male.

Both sons of Fuleshwar Rai, All Resident of Village- Kutubpur, PS Bidupur, District- Vaishali.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel

for the petitioners; Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned Additional

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

State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Bidupur PS Case No. 272 of 2020 dated 25.07.2020, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners and others is of

assault on the informant and his son and also forcibly taking Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37744 of 2020 dt.23-07-2021

thumb impression on plain papers as also snatching of gold chain

and Rs. 15,000/- from the informant's son.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

informant is the full brother of petitioner no. 1 and there is land

dispute between the parties. It was submitted that even as per the

FIR, the allegation of attack by farsa on the head of the son of the

informant is against co-accused Jitendra Kumar, who is not the

petitioner in the present petition. It was submitted that the

petitioner no. 1 is 100% blind, in support thereof, learned counsel

drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-2, which is copy of

such certificate issued by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre of

Ophthalmic Sciences in the All India Institute of Medical

Sciences, New Delhi dated 18.06.2009. Learned counsel

submitted that against petitioners no. 2 and 3, the allegation is

general and omnibus of assault on the informant with lathi and

danda but no injury report has been produced in support thereof

by the informant side. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that as per the allegation, the

petitioner no. 1 was drunk and had come to the house of the

informant and had abused him whereas petitioners no. 2 and 3 had

assaulted the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37744 of 2020 dt.23-07-2021

7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the

petitioner no. 1 was the main cause for the incident and that the

fact that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 had assaulted the informant

and petitioner no. 2 had taken thumb impression on plain papers

also is serious as any document can be created relating to land

which would be detrimental to the interest of the informant as

there is land dispute between the parties. However, it was not

controverted that the specific allegation of attack by farsa on the

head of the son of the informant is against another co-accused

Jitendra Kumar and further that no injury report has been

furnished by the informant side.

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 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Bidupur

PS Case No. 272 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in

Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and

further, and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close

relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37744 of 2020 dt.23-07-2021

shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good

behaviour of the petitioners and (iii) that the petitioners shall co-

operate with the police/prosecution and the Court. Any violation

of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or

failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

9. 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

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

10. The petition stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T