High Court granted anticipatory bail to one petitioner in a criminal蟒Jurisdictional facts suggest incident occurred elsewhere without local registration.
Petitioner no.1 released on bail with bond of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties, conditional on cooperation and no tampering.
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.41852 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2021 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP For the Informant/Complainant: Mr. Srinath, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from today.
Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned APP for the State as well as Mr. Srinath, learned counsel for the informant.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present bail application,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41852 of 2021(2) dt.09-06-2022 2/5
petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been arrested by the police and as such the application with regard to them has become infructuous.
The petitioner no.1 (Tuntun Mahto) is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 42 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 386/370 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per prosecution case, it is alleged that petitioner no.1 and other accused persons have taken the sons of the informant to Bangalore for construction work. It is alleged that after taking work from them for 3-4 months, when his sons demanded their wages, all the accused persons including petitioner no.1 assaulted his sons through Iron pipe and other materials. It is further alleged that thereafter his sons came to the village and when complaint has been made to other accused persons named in the F.I.R. they also assaulted them.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the bar, on instruction of his client, that as per his information till date the process under Sections 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. have not been issued.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no.1 that there is no specific allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41852 of 2021(2) dt.09-06-2022 3/5
against petitioner no.1, inasmuch, as the entire incidence is said to have taken place at Bangalore, but surprisingly neither any F.I.R. nor any complaint has been instituted there. Moreover, even after coming to their village, no complaint has been instituted, rather it is alleged that they went to their village and when the entire incidence has been narrated thereupon the accused nos. 5 to 9 assaulted them and lastly after four months a complaint case has been instituted on 09.01.2021. It is further submitted that even from perusal of the prescriptions of the treating Doctor of Bangalore it appears that the son of the informant had fallen for some height, due to which he received head injuries and he was sent to Trauma Centre for treatment. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner no.1 has fair antecedent and he is a contractor at Bangalore.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner no.1 is the main accused and it is the fact that sons of the informant were assaulted by him, but on account of some reason the F.I.R. could not be instituted at Bangalore, but soon thereafter when they reached at their village, complaint was instituted.
Learned APP for the State opposes the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41852 of 2021(2) dt.09-06-2022 4/5
application.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the entire incidence has taken place at Bangalore, but no complaint/F.I.R. has been instituted there and moreover the prescriptions showing the treatment of the son of the informant suggest otherwise, inasmuch, as the petitioner no.1 carrying clean antecedent and he is giving undertaking that he will co-operate in the investigation and will not tamper the evidences, let the petitioner no.1 (Tuntun Mahto), be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within eight weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Saran at Chapra in connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 42 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors shall be the close relatives of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation as well as in conclusion of the trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41852 of 2021(2) dt.09-06-2022 5/5
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witnesses in course of investigation or during the
course of trial.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail given lack of FIR at the initial place of incident.
Whether the petitioner qualifies for bail despite apprehension of arrest pending investigation.
Whether conditions can be imposed to restrict future arrest and future tampering of evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tuntun Mahto
Arjun Mahto
Raj Kumari
Jagpati Devi
The State of Bihar
Swaminath Mahto
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
