High CourtsSingle Bench

Neeraj Thakur And Anr vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 19 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 PAT CK 0216

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 323, 341, 380, 427, 448, 504 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9329 Of 2020
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

20 paragraphs · 385 words
1.

Heard Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sheikhpura PS Case No. 324 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 448,

307, 380, 427 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3.

The allegation against the petitioners and others is that they had assaulted the informant and his family members when they objected to the family of

the petitioners trying to make construction of the chajja of their house inside the land of the informant. Further, there is direct overt act alleged against

petitioner no. 2 of giving blow on the head of the mother of the informant by the butt of the pistol and of also firing on the informant, though without

causing any injury.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been falsely implicated and there is a counter case. It was further submitted that the

allegation of firing against petitioner no. 1 is also false as no injury has been caused and that it was the informant party who were the aggressors as

construction was being made by the petitioners upon their land. It was submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP submitted that there is direct allegation of criminal act against the petitioners and their father and it is obvious that all have acted with

common intention being armed with firearms. It was further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has assaulted by iron rod and also of having fired and

hitting on the head by the butt of the pistol. He submitted that there is no averment; much less any material to indicate that there was any counter case

for the same incident.

6.

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 petitioners.

7.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8.

However, if the petitioners appear before the Court below within four weeks from today and pray for bail, the same shall be considered on its own

merits without being prejudiced by the present order.