Md. Firoj Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16189 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2020 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Md. Firoj Ansari, aged about 30 years,.

2.

Md. Saddam Ansari @ Saddam Ansari, aged about 25 years. Both sons of Md. Islam @ Jato Islam @ Jaye Ansari R/o villageDhorari, P.S.- Sano, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Najmul Hodda, Adv.

Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-03-2022 Heard Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, learned A.P.P. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of his/her/their arrest in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 207 of 2020 dated 13.08.2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 447, 307, 379, 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation against the petitioners and others is of assaulting the members of the prosecution party. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the injuries of the victims do not conform to the accusation made against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16189 of 2021(2) dt.04-03-2022 2/3 them. Though there is general allegation against all the accused persons but with respect to the petitioner no.2, it has specifically been provided in the F.I.R. that because of his assault, Bodhi Mandal, one of the victims, lost one of his ears. However, the injury report of the aforesaid Bodhi Mandal is not in consonance with the accusation made in the F.I.R. Some of the injuries on some of the victims have been found to be grievous in nature but, the dimensions of such injuries do not indicate that it was in any manner life threatening. There is a counter version of the occurrence also vide Sono P.S. Case No. 208 of 2020.

The dispute appears to have arisen over the construction of a house on a plot of land. So far as the charge under Section 354 I.P.C. is concerned, it does not appear to have been made out. The allegations under Section 379 I.P.C. also appears to have been unnecessarily added in the column of the charges.

Considering the aforementioned submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16189 of 2021(2) dt.04-03-2022 3/3 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 207 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) rishi/- U T