The High Court rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail in PS Case 45 of 2017. Despite claiming a bona fide land dispute, the court denied bail citing specific allegations of armed assault, injury to life, and one petitioner's criminal antecedents.
Petitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31088 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -45 Year- 2017 Thana -SURYAGARHA District- LAKHISARAI
Both are son of Arjun Ram Resident of Village- Nawabganj, P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case no. 45 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 385 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant has alleged that on 2.03.2017, when he was harvesting mustard crops at his purchased land, suddenly both the petitioners and other accused persons came and asked him to stop harvesting. On protest, the petitioner no. 1 inflicted farsa blow on his head. The petitioner no. 2 was holding a pistol in his hand. The other co-accused persons demanded ransom to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and also snatched his gold chain.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31088 of 2017 (2) dt.13-07-2017
2/3
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a land dispute is going on between the parties and earlier to this, the mother of this petitioner had filed a complaint case, on the basis of which Surajgarha P.S. Case no. 88 of 2016 was registered for the offence under Sections 324, 387 and other allied Sections of the I.P.C. There is a bona fide land dispute and so the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail.
The learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the submissions.
On perusal of the F.I.R., and annexures available on record, I find that both the petitioners are named in the First Information Report with specific allegation that they came armed with pistol and farsa and the petitioner no. 1 assaulted the informant on his head by farsa blow. The injury report (Annexure-3) shows that the informant sustained three injuries out of which injury no. 3 was caused on frontal region 4” long x 1/2 ” deep cut mark which according to the doctor was dangerous to life. Besides that, the petitioner no. 2 is an accused in Lakhisarai P.S. Case no. 255 of 1988 registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the specific allegation of causing injury on head by farsa blow as also the antecedent, I am not inclined to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31088 of 2017 (2) dt.13-07-2017
3/3
grant them anticipatory bail. Their prayer is rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of assault and attempted murder with antecedents.
Tuntun Ram
Ram Balak Ram
The State of Bihar
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
