Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner yesterday, which was allowed.

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Asha Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘APP’) for the State and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Maharajganj PS Case No. 250 of 2020 dated 18.09.2020, instituted under Sections

342/323/324/326/307/338/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner and five others is of assault on the informant and his father and specifically against the petitioner is that he had

iron rod in his hand and had assaulted the father of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the genesis of the incident is that there was dispute with regard to construction of speed breaker

on the road which was opposed by the informant and his wife, who is a Ward Councillor, due to which there was verbal spat and co-accused Satyam

Kumar is said to have been armed with sword and the petitioner with the iron rod and it is alleged that the father of the informant was assaulted by

them and also that co-accused Ujjwal Kumar attacked the informant with knife in the stomach. It was submitted that at best the allegation as per the

FIR itself is assault by iron rod on the father of the informant, which is not corroborated by the injury report. Learned counsel drew the attention of the

Court to Annexre-3, which is injury report of the father of the informant and is also a report after CT Scan, which also does not show any fracture of

bone and the brain parenchyma is normal in morphology and density. It was submitted that the said allegation of assault by the petitioner is, thus, not

corroborated and obviously false. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and there is political rivalry between the

families and the informant and his father have been convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment in which the informant also was an

accused, but got benefit under the Juvenile Justice Act. It was submitted that though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 11.09.2020, but the

fardbeyan was recorded only on 14.09.2020, without any explanation for the delay.

Learned APP submitted that there is allegation of assault by iron rod against the petitioner. However, it was not controverted that CT scan of the

brain of the father of the informant does not show sign of any injury.

Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner was also party to the assault. However, he also could not controvert the fact that the

allegation of assault by iron rod on the father of the informant is not corroborated by injury report and CT scan of brain of the father of the informant.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five

thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan in Maharajganj PS Case

No. 250 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 petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour

of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court/police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds

or the undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.

It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court

concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.