Mere Act intending to cause serious injury to the Informant forms sufficient grounds for denying the application for bail by the Petitioner: High Court Of Patna
The Petitioner was apprehended arrest for firing and committing assault on the informant causing injuries to him. The Court didn’t rely on the gravity or seriousness of the injury and considered that the mere act of causing grievous hurt to the informant forms sufficient grounds for not granting the bail to the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Deepak Yadav v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No.10284 of 2021].  The facts of the case were that the Petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was alleged that the petitioner and others committed the assault on the informant and other persons during Panchayati. The Senior Counsel of Petitioner submitted that during Panchayati relating to a land dispute, the incident is said to have occurred. He submitted that there is also a counter case for the same incident and the sequence of events narrated in the counter case have not been explained in the present case, since, injury suffered by the petitioner’s side has not been explained. It was submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus against the accused persons and specifically against the petitioner, it is stated that he fired from his pistol on the victim Shambhu Yadav, who is also the informant, on his head, but he managed to avoid the same and the bullet had hit him on his leg. By further investigation, it was found that there was nowhere mentioned about the grievous injury and contended that the act was out of aggression of the informant’s side and petitioner’s side has also suffered serious injuries. The petitioner submitted that he had no other criminal antecedent and has been serving the nation as a havildar Instructor in-home Guard and Fire Services. It was further submitted that if at all, the allegation is accepted to be true, the same has resulted only in a lacerated wound behind the knee which indicates that it was on a non-vital part, and also the wound is superficial and simple. The Additional Public Prosecutor added that the injury report of the informant depicted blackening of the margin and X-ray was advised but there was no report of the X-ray and the injury was shown to be by dangerous firearm and the attempt was to cause a serious injury. It was further added that the informant was lucky that no major damage was caused, but the act was fortuitous and cannot grant the benefit to the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP and learned counsel for the informant. At this stage, when the allegation is of firing against the petitioner, which is corroborated by the injury report, the Court would not weigh the pros and cons or the seriousness of the injury.” The Court further added,” For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The Petition was hence dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.102821 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 194 Year 2020 Thana MUNGER MUFFASIL District Munger Deepak Yadav @ Deepak Kumar aged 34 years son of Late Chunchun Yadav resident of village Bank P.S. Muffasil Dist. Munger ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh APP Mr. Indu Bhushan Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on 03.08.2021 which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Indu Bhushan learned counsel for the informant. 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Muffasil PS Case No. 1920 dated 19.08.2020 instituted under Sections 147 148 149 341 323 307 504 506 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.102821 dt.10 08 2021 Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act 1959. 5. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of assault on the informant and other persons during course of 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR itself during course of Panchayati relating to land dispute the incident is said to have occurred. He submitted that there is also a counter case for the same incident and the sequence of events narrated in the counter case have not been explained in the present case inasmuch as injury suffered by the petitioner’s side has not been explained. It was submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against the accused persons and specifically against the petitioner it is stated that he fired from his pistol on the victim Shambhu Yadav who is also the informant on his head but he managed to avoid the same and the bullet had hit him on his leg. Learned senior counsel drew the attention of the Court to the injury report of the said Shambhu Yadav and submitted that the same discloses that there was lacerated wound behind left knee and the nature of the injury is said to be simple but caused by dangerous firearm weapon gun shot. It was further submitted that the report also discloses that there was no evidence of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.102821 dt.10 08 2021 grievous injury. It was contended by learned senior counsel that the incident occurred due to aggression from the informant’s side and the petitioner s side has also suffered serious injury. It was submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent and he is in employment being Havildar Instructor in Home Guard and Fire Services Bihar. Learned counsel submitted that the law has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State2020(1) PLJR 524 the relevant being at paragraph no. 76 that parameters for grant of regular bail and anticipatory bail should be the same and no distinction should be made between the two. It was further submitted that if at all the allegation is accepted to be true the same has resulted only in lacerated wound behind the knee which clearly indicates that it was on a non vital part and also the wound is superficial and simple in nature 7. Learned APP submitted that as per the allegation the petitioner used firearm which has resulted in injury on the 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner was also party to the abduction of another victim namely Ravi Raj upon whom co accused Jai Raj Yadav Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.102821 dt.10 08 2021 Gautam Yadav had fired on the neck which is corroborated by the injury report. It was submitted that the injury report of the informant clearly shows blackening of the margin and X ray was advised but there is no report of the X ray and further the nature of injury has been shown to be by dangerous firearm weapon gun shot and the attempt by the petitioner was to cause serious damage as he had used firearm and it was the good fortune of the informant that he was saved and it did not cause any major damage but such fortuitous circumstances cannot lead to grant of benefit to the petitioner for he had tried his best to cause damage by firing on the head and the informant had been able to save himself from such assault. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioner being employed in Home Guard and Fire Services and committing such offence itself is a serious thing and the witnesses have also supported the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the present is not a fit case even for regular bail much less anticipatory bail as the firing caused by the petitioner has resulted in injury and the Court at this stage may not go into the seriousness of the injury as the mere fact that firing has been made itself discloses the intention to cause serious damage and it was not because of the petitioner that simple injury was caused since it was the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.102821 dt.10 08 2021 informant who had managed to save himself from any serious damage of which the benefit cannot be taken by the petitioner. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP and learned counsel for the informant. At this stage when the allegation is of firing against the petitioner which is corroborated by the injury report the Court would not weigh the pros and cons or the seriousness of the injury 10. For reasons aforesaid the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 