The Patna High Court declined to modify an executed anticipatory bail order despite a counsel defense that a recorded observation inadvertently implied a sword blow caused grievous injury, since the opposite party's recording of simple injuries remained accurate.
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.50822 of 2022
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44344 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2021 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
RATNESH KUMAR S/O RAVINDRA RAY Resident of Ward No- 08, Durga Mandir, Bardiha Chowk, Bradiha Turki, Bardiha, P.S.- Patepur, DistrictVaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.K. Lal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 28-09-2022
Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Atul Chandra, the learned counsel for the State.
Under peculiar circumstances, an application has been filed for modification of the order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44344 of 2021, by which anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner.
The aforesaid order has been executed and the petitioner has already been released on anticipatory bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court.
While recording the facts of this case, this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50822 of 2022(2) dt.28-09-2022 2/3
had dictated that notwithstanding the petitioner having given a sword blow on the face of the informant, the injuries suffered by the informant were all simple in nature.
There appears to be some mistake in recording of the afore-noted fact as has been pointed out by Mr. Lal, the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lal has drawn the attention of this Court to the original bail petition in which in paragraph -10, he has clearly mentioned that all but one injury on the person of the informant has been opined to be simple. In support of the aforesaid statement made in the bail petition, the injury report also had been annexed.
Prima facie, there does not appear to be any intention on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to mislead the court or to provide wrong information. The necessity for filing the modification application has arisen because of some unsavory comment on the learned counsel for having misled the Court.
Since the order has already been executed, any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50822 of 2022(2) dt.28-09-2022 3/3
modification of the order even with respect to one simple fact would lead to cancellation of bail bonds. Even otherwise, the solitary grievous injury on the informant is not of such a nature which could be life-threatening or dangerous.
For such reason, this Court is not inclined to modify the order dated 29.04.2022, as it has already been executed.
With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
sunilkumar/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail order granted should be modified due to a factual dispute regarding the nature of injuries to the informant?
Ratnesk Kumar
State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
