Govind Raj @ Govinda Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1287 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31999 of 2020
         Arising Out of PS Case No.-71 Year-2017 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna
======================================================

Govind Raj @ Govinda Rai, aged about 30 years, Male Son of Premchand Rai, Resident of Hawaspur, PS- Shahpur, District - Patna.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-03-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned Additional

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

State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Shahpur PS Case No. 71 of 2017 dated 13.04.2017, instituted

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 120B/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31999 of 2020 dt.05-03-2021

4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of

firing on the informant side which also caused injury in the right

knee of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though the incident is said to be the result of Rs. 315/- and a

motorcycle being snatched from the son of the informant, but later

it has been stated that when the informant and his other family

members came near the pipal tree, the petitioner is said to have

given order to fire which was resorted to by the other co-accused

and hit the informant near the right knee. It was submitted that

there is no overt act alleged against the petitioner except that he

gave order to fire. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused

Bijendra Kumar @ Benga Rai, Golu Kumar and Bittu Kumar have

been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench by order

dated 19.09.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42950 of 2017 and also

Sunil Rai, Vishok Rai and Ashok Rai, have also been granted

anticipatory bail by order dated 18.05.2018 passed in Cr. Misc.

No. 30724 of 2018. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner

is the husband of the local Mukhiya and due to political rivalry has

been named with the intention to harass and damage him.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31999 of 2020 dt.05-03-2021

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was the

person who had exhorted the others to fire and the said firing

resulted in serious injury to the informant.

7. 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-I, Danapur, Patna in Shahpur PS Case No. 71 of

2017, 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 with regard to good

behaviour of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also

give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any

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

provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the

undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The

petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the

Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31999 of 2020 dt.05-03-2021

on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall also lead

to cancellation of his bail bonds.

8. 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

petitioner.

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T