Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Akhilesh Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2021

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 PAT 1210

Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 38228 of 2020
             Arising Out of PS. Case No.-413 Year-2020 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
      ======================================================
1.     Akhilesh Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary, Male, aged about
       68 years, Son of Late Jaglal Chaudhary.
2.     Avishek Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Chaudhary, Male, aged about 28 years,
       Son of Akhilesh Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary.
3.     Saurav Kumar Chaudhary, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Akhilesh
       Chaudhary @ Akhileshwar Prasad Chaudhary.
       All are resident of Village - Gheghta, PS-Sonepur, District-Saran.

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

                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
      ======================================================
      Appearance :
      For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate
      For the State            :        Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
      ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 27-08-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to file the petition supported by affidavit through e filing today itself. Let the same be done.

4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sonepur PS Case No. 413 of 2020 dated 24.05.2020, instituted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38228 of 2020 dt.27-08-2021 2/4 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is of assault on the informant and other persons and against petitioner no. 1, it is specific that he had exhorted others to kill on which co-accused Paramvir Kumar Chaudhary is said to have attacked with Hasuli on Nanhak Sahni, who sustained injury on his neck and fell down whereas co-accused Mantu Chaudhary is said to have attacked with Hasuli on the informant's neck causing injury on back side and co-accused Sunil Rai is said to have assaulted on the hand of the informant with Hasuli and further, co-accused Jitendra Kumar Rai is said to have assaulted on the back of the informant with Hasuli.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a counter case, being Sonepur PS Case No. 414 of 2020, has been instituted by the son of the petitioner no. 1 against the informant and others under Sections 342, 323, 324 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioners' side had also received injuries caused by dagger. Learned counsel submitted that there is no specific allegation of any overt act against petitioners no. 2 and 3 and at best, they can be said to be present there being member of the mob. Further, it was submitted that even against petitioner no.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38228 of 2020 dt.27-08-2021 3/4 1, the only allegation is that he had exhorted others to kill the informant, but no overt act has been attributed to him. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent.

7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners with common intention had together assaulted the informant and others. However, it was not controverted that the petitioner no. 1 is alleged of having only exhorted others to kill and against petitioners no. 2 and 3, no specific overt act has been alleged.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the petitioner no. 1 is said to have only extorted others to kill the informant and there being no overt act alleged against petitioners no. 2 and 3 and all the petitioners having no other criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in Sonepur PS Case No. 413 of 2020, subject to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38228 of 2020 dt.27-08-2021 4/4 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 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