Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4460 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23381 of 2020
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2019 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan
     ======================================================

1. Vishal Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Yadav [M] aged about 20 years, S/o Shivashanker Yadav @ Shivshanker Chaudhari

2. Kishun Yadav [M] aged about 55 years, S/o Late Meghnath Yadav

3. Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Chaudhari [M] aged about 40 years,

4. Shivshanker Yadav @ Shivshanker Chaudhari [M] aged about 47 years,

5. Chathu Yadav [M] aged about 45 years, All sons of Kanhaiya Yadav

6. Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Chaudhari [M] aged about 42 years,

7. Ravindra Yadav [M] aged about 25 years, Both sons of Ramae Yadav All are Resident of Village- Harihans, P.S.- Hussainganj, District- Siwan

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

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

     For the Petitioner/s    :       Ms. Aprajita, Advocate
     For the State           :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-09-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Ms. Aprajita, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Additional Public

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

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Hussainganj PS Case No. 331 of 2019 dated 25.12.2019,

instituted under Sections 147/341/323/379/307/504/506/324 of

the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23381 of 2020 dt.04-09-2021

4. The allegation against the petitioners, along with

four others, is of being variously armed and having attacked the

informant and others and specifically against the petitioner no. 1

is that he had assaulted Shailendra Yadav by lathi; against

petitioner no. 2 is that he was a member of the mob; against

petitioner no. 3 is that he had assaulted Anil Yadav on the head

by axe and on the cheek by bhala and on Surendra Yadav by

axe; against petitioner no. 4 that he had held from behind

Surendra Yadav; against petitioner no. 5 that he had attacked

Prahalad Yadav by axe; against petitioner no. 6 that he had

assaulted Vidyanath Yadav and Amarnath Yadav by axe whereas

against petitioner no. 7 that he had assaulted Prahlad Yadav by

lathi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the allegations are general and vague and for the same incident

there is also a counter case filed by Layeichi Devi, wife of

petitioner no. 2, being Hussainganj PS Case No. 332 of 2019. It

was submitted that the genesis of the incident has not been truly

stated in the present FIR and the fact is that the drainage was

being constructed on government land to which the informant

had objected and there was scuffle between the parties and both

sides have sustained injuries and since it was being made in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23381 of 2020 dt.04-09-2021

front of the land of the petitioners, they wanted the construction

to proceed. Learned counsel submitted that the injuries are

simple in nature and three other accused persons, namely Jaggu

Yadav, Guddu Yadav and Abhishek Yadav have been granted

bail by the Court below, though they are alleged to have caused

grievous injuries. Summing up her arguments, learned counsel

submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the

injuries caused by petitioners no. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are simple in

nature; however, with regard to petitioner no. 6 the same has

caused fracture of skull and the allegation in the FIR of attack

by axe is corroborated where the cause of injuries is sharp

cutting weapon. However, learned APP did not controvert the

fact that against petitioner no. 2 there is no specific allegation of

any overt act.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties,

taking note of the fact that for the same incident there is also a

counter case and basically the dispute seems to have arisen on

the spur of the moment and there being injuries on both the

sides and also the injuries attributed to the petitioners, except for

petitioner no. 6, being simple in nature as also the statement in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23381 of 2020 dt.04-09-2021

the petition that the petitioners have no other criminal

antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-

arrest bail with regard to petitioners no. 1 to 5 and 7.

8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, namely, Vishal Yadav @

Vishal Kumar Yadav; Kishun Yadav; Birendra Yadav @

Birendra Chaudhari; Shivshnker Yadav @ Shivshnker

Chaudhari; Chathu Yadav and Ravindra Yadav, respectively 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,

Siwan in Hussainganj PS Case No. 331 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 petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, (ii) that

the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and the bailors shall

execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good

behaviour of the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, and (iii) that

the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 shall cooperate with the

Court and the police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and

conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23381 of 2020 dt.04-09-2021

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 by the petitioners no. 1, 2,

3, 4, 5 and 7, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall

take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.

10. Prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no. 6,

namely, Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Chaudhari, stands rejected.

                     11.    The      petition     stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                              (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)


Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T