High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramjee Sao vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 17 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 PAT CK 0185

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 427, 448, 504 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4410 Of 2021
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

26 paragraphs · 542 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2.

Heard Mr. Ambuj Narayan Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

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

3.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Paliganj PS Case No. 309 of 2019 dated 22.08.2019, instituted under Sections 147, 148, 448,

341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

This is the second attempt for grant of anticipatory bail as earlier such prayer was not pressed on 09.12.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 78154 of 2019, and

only on behalf of co-accused Arun Kumar, the same was pressed and the Court had also granted him pre-arrest bail.

5.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with others, had assaulted the informant and his family members and specifically against the

petitioner is that he had inflicted iron rod blow on the stomach of pregnant sister of the informant.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the earlier instance, such prayer was not pressed in view of the specific allegation that the

petitioner had hit on the stomach of the pregnant sister of the informant but only complain of pain in abdomen and light bruises have been found during

medical examination and she was referred to PMCH for diagnosis. It was further stated that she did not submit any report of any injury. Learned

counsel referred to the information received under the Right to Information Act from the Deputy Superintendent, PMCH which states that there is no

entry of any patient by the name of Anjani Kumari wife of Guddu Prasad being admitted in PMCH from 21.08.2019 to 25.08.2019. It was submitted

that Anjani Kumari wife of Guddu Prasad is the informant’s sister who is said to have been given blow by iron rod by the petitioner on the

stomach which is mentioned in the FIR itself. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7.

Learned APP submitted that the allegation in the FIR is of hitting the pregnant sister of the informant on the stomach. However, she did not

controvert that the injury report and the informant from PMCH do not corroborate the allegation.

8.

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 learned SDJM, Danapur (Patna) in Paliganj PS Case No. 309 of 2019,

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 with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner and he shall co-

operate with the police/prosecution and the Court. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation

of his bail bonds.

9.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.