Birendra Chouhan @ Birendra Kumar Chouhan vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application has been filed under sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who is an accused in this case in connection with Khelari P.S.Case No. 16 of 2017 corresponding to G.R Case No. 961 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341 / 323 / 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and now pending in the court of learned C.J.M Ranchi.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but on the basis of the F.I.R the allegation has been lodged against co-accused, who is an unknown persons, whose description has been shown in very general terms by the informant , as a boy of brownish complexion. The learned counsel further submitted that no case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and others section 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable in nature. So far as section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, as alleged in the FIR, it is stated that the same is not made out against the petitioner as no arms or any ammunition has been recovered either from the conscious possession of the petitioner or from the disclosure of the petitioner who has been apprehended at the spot. The learned counsel further submits that there is no incident occurred as mentioned in the FIR, rather the same has been manufactured by the informant only in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been brutally beaten by the informant side and this only in order to save from the counter blast of the said occurrence and to this effect, the petitioner had lodged one FIR pertaining to the real fact shows his bonafide vider Khelari P.S Case No. 17 of 2017 from which it clearly shows that the petitioner is the victim in the instant case who sustained grievous injury on his head right shoulder for which he had under gone treatment at CCL Hospital. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are so many cases lodged against the informant in which chargesheet has been submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is in jail custody since 16.3.2017.

The learned A.P.P opposed the bail and submitted that the petitioner had fired in the public place for which informant had sustained injury and one live cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence. He has also stated that during investigation he has recorded the statement of the eyewitnesses Rajesh Kumar Singh and Chhotu Khan in which they have fully supported the prosecution case and therefore he should not be granted bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the records, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, petitioner Azad Ansari is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M Ranchi.