Brahmdeo Yadav vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hearinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Alinagar PS Case No. 59 of 2020 dated 03.07.2020, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 448, 324, 307, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The allegation against the petitioners and one other co-accused Manoj Yadav is of assault on Ram Balak Yadav and Amarjeet Yadav leading to injuries and specifically against co-accused Manoj Yadav is that he had physically tried to fire on Ram Balak Yadav and thereafter, when the same could not fire, he had assaulted Ram Balak Yadav and Amarjeet Yadav with lathi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are agnates and there is longstanding land dispute between them. It was submitted that earlier also the informant's side had filed a criminal case in which the petitioners no. 2 and 3 have been acquitted and thereafter, again the wife of the informant had filed a case in the year 2012. Learned counsel submitted that the correct genesis of the occurrence has not been narrated, inasmuch as, the wife of petitioner no. 1 has filed Alinagar PS Case No. 70 of 2020, which has been instituted on the basis of her fardbeyan recorded by the police in the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital (DMCH). Learned counsel submitted that as per the present FIR, without assigning any reason, it has been stated that co-accused Manoj Yadav had rung up the informant and had threatened that he would come and kill him and thereafter, all the accused had gone to the house of the informant, but not finding any male members, they had proceeded towards the field and Ram Balak Yadav, who was returning was assaulted and thereafter, his son Amarjeet Yadav who came to rescue him, was also assaulted. It was submitted that such action, without giving any cause is not only unbelievable but quite absurd.

Learned counsel submitted that from the FIR instituted by the wife of petitioner no. 1, for the same incident, it is clear that there was dispute with regard to cattle being kept on a piece of land which was objected by the other side leading to fight between them. It was submitted that though there is general and omnibus allegation of assault by countrymade pistol, khanti, lathi and katta, but the specific allegation of repeated assault on the head of Ram Balak Yadav, initially by countrymade pistol and thereafter by lathi as also that on his son Amarjeet Yadav, is against co-accused Manoj Yadav, who is not a petitioner herein. Learned counsel submitted that the injury reports also reveal that except for a fracture in one of the fingers, no major injury has been caused, whereas on the side of the petitioners, two ladies have been injured who were admitted to DMCH from where statement was recorded and FIR of the other case lodged.

Learned APP submitted that there is allegation of assault against the petitioners also. However, it was not controverted that the same is general and omnibus and against co-accused Manoj Yadav, it is specific of assault, initially by countrymade pistol and thereafter, by lathi, both on the injured Ram Balak Yadav and his son Amarjeet Yadav.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the fact that there is long standing civil dispute between the parties who are agnates and there being a counter case for the same incident in which genesis of the incident has been explained and no cause mentioned in the present FIR, as also there being only general and omnibus allegation of assault against the petitioners, the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail.

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 ACJM, Benipur, District-Darbhanga in Alinagar PS Case No. 59 of 2020, subject to 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.

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.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.