Md. Kudus vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2211 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35585 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS Case No.-114 Year-2019 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
      ======================================================

1. Md. Kudus, age about 60 years, Male Son of Late Keshi.

2. Md. Hero @ Hiro, age about 40 years, Male Son of Md. Halim @ Halim.

3. Md. Istiyaq @ Istiyaq, age about 45 years, Male Son of Md. Mohiuddin.

4. Md. Rihan @ Rihan, age about 20 years, Male Son of Md. Kalim @ Kalim.

5. Md. Kalim @ Kalim, age about 58 years, Male Son of Md. Rafi @ Raffi @ Rafeeq.

6. Bibi Saleha @ Saliya, age about 24 years, Female Wife of Md. Smasher.

7. Md. Rehan @ Rehan, age about 21 years, Male Son of Md. Chhanguri @ Chhanguri.

8. Bibi Aaysha @ Aisa, age about 30 years, Female Wife of Md. Sakeer @ Sakir.

9. Md. Nakir @ Nakir, age about 40 years, Male Son of Md. Samsul Village-

Pina, PS-Chausa, District-Madhepura.

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

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

      For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate
      For the State           :        Mr. Satyanand Shukla, APP
      For the Informant       :        Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The matter has been heard out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners yesterday,

which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Nafisuzzoha, learned counsel for the

petitioners; Mr. Satyanand Shukla, learned Additional Public Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35585 of 2020 dt.02-06-2021

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

Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Chausa PS Case No. 114 of 2019 dated 30.04.2019, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 307, 435, 379, 437, 524 and 506/34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he

may be permitted to withdraw the application on behalf of

petitioners no. 2, 4 and 9 namely, Md. Hero @ Hiro; Md. Rihan @

Rihan and Md. Nikir @ Nikir, as they have been arrested.

6. In view thereof, the application on behalf of the

aforesaid petitioners no. 2, 4 and 9 stands disposed off as

withdrawn and is limited to petitioners no. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8

namely, Md. Kudus; Md. Istiyaq @ Istiyaq; Md. Kalim @ Kalim;

Bibi Saleha @ Saliya; Md. Rehan @ Rehan and Bibi Aaysha @

Aisa respectively.

7. The petitioners are accused of assaulting the

informant and his family members resulting in injuries.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

parties are next door neighbours and there is a piece of land

between them for which there is long standing dispute between the

parties and the present case is also a result of the same. It was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35585 of 2020 dt.02-06-2021

submitted that for the same incident, there is a counter case filed

by the petitioner no. 1, being Chousa PS Case No. 115 of 2019

dated 30.04.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427,

504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the family

members of the present informant. Learned counsel submitted that

the allegation against petitioners no. 1 and 5 is that they, along

with others, had assaulted on the head but there is no specific

allegation as to what overt act was committed by which of them

and where the same had hit the victim. It was submitted that even

in the case filed by the petitioner no. 1, there have been injuries.

Learned counsel submitted that with regard to the other

petitioners, there is no specific allegation and only against

petitioner no. 3, it is of burning the house and with regard to

others it is general and omnibus that they were also part of the

persons who had attacked. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

9. Learned APP submitted that the victims have received

injuries and there is allegation of assault on a vital part i.e., head,

against petitioners no. 1 and 5.

10. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the

petitioners were the aggressors and they had tried to demolish the

hut of the informant and had also burnt the same and further that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35585 of 2020 dt.02-06-2021

at the stage of FIR, it is not required that details of exact blows

hitting which part of the body is to be disclosed as it is only to set

the investigation into motion and it is sufficient that petitioners no.

1 and 5 had assaulted and it is immaterial as to whose blow had

actually hit, but the same has resulted in injuries on the head

which has been noticed in the order of the learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, 1st, Madhepura dated 18.08.2020 in

ABP No. 478 of 2020, while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory

bail of the petitioners and two other persons. It was further

submitted that there has been suppression of fact on the part of

petitioners no. 1 and 5 as it has been written in the application that

they too have clean antecedent, but the fact is that they are

accused in Chousa PS Case No. 41 of 2015 under Sections 147,

148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal

Code and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, with regard

to petitioners no. 3, 6, 7 and 8 it was not controverted that the

allegations are in general and omnibus terms.

11. On a query of the Court to learned counsel for the

petitioners, he fairly submitted that the person who had come with

instructions and has affirmed the affidavit had not disclosed such Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35585 of 2020 dt.02-06-2021

fact. He apologized for non-mentioning of the same, if it was

correct.

12. 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 eight

weeks from today, petitioner no. 3 namely, Md. Istiyaq @ Istiyaq;

petitioner no. 6 namely, Bibi Saleha @ Saliya; petitioner no. 7

namely, Md. Rehan @ Rehan and petitioner no. 8 namely, Bibi

Aaysha @ Aisa, 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 SDJM,

Udakishunganj at Madhepura in Chausa PS Case No. 114 of 2019,

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 said petitioners, (ii) that the said

petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give

undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the said petitioners

and (iii) that the said 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35585 of 2020 dt.02-06-2021

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

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the said

petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing

to the concerned petitioners.

14. Prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioners no. 1 namely,

Md. Kudus and petitioner no. 5 namely, Md. Kalim @ Kalim

stands rejected.

15. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T