Hiran Mandal vs State Of Bihar

Heard Ms. Pravina Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecution (hereinafter

referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Kahalgaon PS Case No. 254 of 2020 dated 24.04.2020, instituted under Sections 302, 307/34 of

the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused is that they had assembled and others are said to have caught hold of the brother of the

informant and fired on his stomach whereas against the petitioner, the specific allegation is that he had fired on the informant which hit his foot causing

injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation is that somebody else gave firearm to the petitioner and he shot at the informant

hitting him in the foot, but the injury report does not corroborate such allegation. It was submitted that the opinion in the injury report does not indicate

that the said injury was caused due to firearm and further that only two empty cartridges have been recovered at the place of occurrence. Learned

counsel submitted that the place of occurrence is also one small room and 10 persons being in that room and causing firing is not believable.

Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that there has been serious wound on the foot of the informant where the bone has split, though final

opinion has been reserved. It was submitted that it is but obvious that such injury of the bone is possible only if hit by a firearm and further that the

brother of the informant who died was hit, as per the FIR itself only by one co-accused which is corroborated by the postmortem report in which there

is one entry wound and one exit wound with charring and thus, the second empty cartridge recovered also corroborates the fact that two shots were

fired, one by another co-accused on the deceased and one by the petitioner on the informant which caused serious wound on the leg of the informant.

It was further submitted that the petitioner carries criminal antecedent also being accused in a case under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian

Penal Code as well as the Arms Act.

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.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.