Patna High Court
Brahmdeo Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 2 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24714 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2020 Thana- ALINAGAR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Brahmdeo Yadav, age about 41 years, Male Son of Late Kari Yadav.
2. Bishun Yadav, aged about 29 years, Male Son of Late Kari Yadav.
3. Rajo Yadav @ Raju Kumar Yadav, age about 17 years, Male Son of
Brahmdeo Yadav.
All are resident of Village - Imamganj, PS- Alinagar, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-09-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (hearinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the
State.
3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Alinagar PS Case No. 59 of 2020 dated 03.07.2020, instituted
under Sections 341, 323, 448, 324, 307, 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. The allegation against the petitioners and one other
co-accused Manoj Yadav is of assault on Ram Balak Yadav and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24714 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021
Amarjeet Yadav leading to injuries and specifically against co-
accused Manoj Yadav is that he had physically tried to fire on
Ram Balak Yadav and thereafter, when the same could not fire, he
had assaulted Ram Balak Yadav and Amarjeet Yadav with lathi.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
parties are agnates and there is longstanding land dispute between
them. It was submitted that earlier also the informant's side had
filed a criminal case in which the petitioners no. 2 and 3 have been
acquitted and thereafter, again the wife of the informant had filed
a case in the year 2012. Learned counsel submitted that the correct
genesis of the occurrence has not been narrated, inasmuch as, the
wife of petitioner no. 1 has filed Alinagar PS Case No. 70 of 2020,
which has been instituted on the basis of her fardbeyan recorded
by the police in the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital
(DMCH). Learned counsel submitted that as per the present FIR,
without assigning any reason, it has been stated that co-accused
Manoj Yadav had rung up the informant and had threatened that
he would come and kill him and thereafter, all the accused had
gone to the house of the informant, but not finding any male
members, they had proceeded towards the field and Ram Balak
Yadav, who was returning was assaulted and thereafter, his son
Amarjeet Yadav who came to rescue him, was also assaulted. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24714 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021
was submitted that such action, without giving any cause is not
only unbelievable but quite absurd.
6. Learned counsel submitted that from the FIR
instituted by the wife of petitioner no. 1, for the same incident, it
is clear that there was dispute with regard to cattle being kept on a
piece of land which was objected by the other side leading to fight
between them. It was submitted that though there is general and
omnibus allegation of assault by countrymade pistol, khanti, lathi
and katta, but the specific allegation of repeated assault on the
head of Ram Balak Yadav, initially by countrymade pistol and
thereafter by lathi as also that on his son Amarjeet Yadav, is
against co-accused Manoj Yadav, who is not a petitioner herein.
Learned counsel submitted that the injury reports also reveal that
except for a fracture in one of the fingers, no major injury has
been caused, whereas on the side of the petitioners, two ladies
have been injured who were admitted to DMCH from where
statement was recorded and FIR of the other case lodged.
7. Learned APP submitted that there is allegation of
assault against the petitioners also. However, it was not
controverted that the same is general and omnibus and against co-
accused Manoj Yadav, it is specific of assault, initially by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24714 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021
countrymade pistol and thereafter, by lathi, both on the injured
Ram Balak Yadav and his son Amarjeet Yadav.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of
the fact that there is long standing civil dispute between the parties
who are agnates and there being a counter case for the same
incident in which genesis of the incident has been explained and
no cause mentioned in the present FIR, as also there being only
general and omnibus allegation of assault against the petitioners,
the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail.
9. Accordingly, 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, Benipur, District-
Darbhanga in Alinagar PS Case No. 59 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 and give undertaking with regard to
good behaviour of the petitioners and (iii) that they shall co-
operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24714 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021
the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure
to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.
10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any
violation of the foregoing conditions 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.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
