CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashok Yadav @ Ashok Prasad vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 4 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 PAT CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 323, 341, 504, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 78415 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 350 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.

Heard Mr. Anil Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chhabilapur PS Case No. 109 of 2019 dated 31.07.2019, instituted under Sections 341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

The allegation against the petitioner is of forcibly trying to plough the field of his brother by tractor and upon objection, having assaulted him causing grievous injury and also of assaulting the informant, who is his mother, when she tried to save the victim.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is son of the informant and the injured is his full brother. It was submitted that there is a counter case filed by him and he has also sustained injury. Learned counsel submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent.

6.

Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the petitioner was the aggressor causing grievous injury on the head, by giving repeated blows, which has been corroborated by the doctor in the injury report. It was submitted that the petitioner has inflicted blows on his mother also while she was trying to save the other brother. It was submitted that the counter case filed by the petitioner was later in time and further that in the present case the injury sustained by him has been explained and clearly it was due to his own fault and not caused by any assault by the victims in the present case. It was submitted that there are many eye witnesses to the incident who have fully supported the prosecution story.

7.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.