Md. Navijaan @ Sultan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42108 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== MD. NAVIJAAN @ SULTAN SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - JOLHANIYA, P.S. - PIPRA, DISTRICT - SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 447, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1b)a/26 of Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 21.08.2021 at about 12:00 Noon all the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner, armed with deadly weapons, came at the door of the informant and started assaulting him. During course of the occurrence, father of the informant was assaulted by spear due to which he got injured and fell on the ground. It is further alleged that accused persons also snatched away one golden chain worth Rs. 60,000/-.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from bear perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that due to petty dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42108 of 2023(3) dt.25-09-2023 2/2 an altercation took place between the parties in which both sides sustained injuries. Case and counter case. It is further submitted that though in the F.I.R. petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the father of the informant with spear but doctor has not found any sharp cut injury rather it is a gun shot injury. It means either the prosecution case is false or the informant has not seen the occurrence. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail application.
6. Considering the discrepancies in the prosecution case and the injury report of the father of the informant and clean antecedent, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Supaul in connection with Pipra P. S. Case No. 242 of 2021, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T