Alleged of Assault and Shooting at the informant to exert undue pressure to withdraw the FIR lodged and case filed, the Petitioner was denied bail: High Court Of Patna
The Petitioner was Alleged of Assault and Shooting at the informant to exert undue pressure to withdraw the FIR lodged and case filed, the Petitioner was denied bail: High Court Of Patna The Petitioner was alleged of assaulting and firing on the informant and had threatened him to withdraw the FIR lodged by the Informant’s nephew. The matter was heard and under the light of all facts and circumstances and taking reference from the previous case the Court denied the pre-arrest bail. . The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the Md Irshad v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12365 of 2021].  The facts were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was alleged that the petitioner along with others had visited the house of the informant and had abused and threatened him to withdraw the case made by the nephew of the informant against the accused and have thereafter assaulted by iron rod and the petitioner had specifically fired at him and which eventually hit the inside wall leading to broken glass. The Petitioner submitted and contended that they had already filed a complaint FIR earlier than them and also it has been found that no one suffered any injury and that their FIR was lodged after the three hours of the incident. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners had the real motive and intentions to hurt the informant and this can be easily derived from the FIR launched in the previous matter by the informant’s nephew. Undue pressure has been exerted by the petitioner’s side to make them withdraw the FIR. Also, many discrepancies were found with the time of lodging the FIRs by both parties and were on different time slots. However, the previous case was ought to be considered on its own merits. 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 is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The Petition was hence denied and was dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 123621 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 116 Year 2020 Thana MUNGER MUFFASIL District Munger Md Irshad Male aged about 25 years Son of Mohd Jameel Resident of Village Banaudha PS Muffasil District Munger The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha Advocate Mr. Niranjan Parihar APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24 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 which was 3. Heard Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Parihar learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Muffasil PS Case No. 1120 dated 14.05.2020 instituted under Sections 341 323 307 504 and 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act 1959. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.123621 dt.24 08 2021 5. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that they had come to the house of the informant and had abused and threatened to withdraw the case filed by the nephew of the informant against the accused persons and thereafter of having assaulted by iron rod and specifically against the petitioner is that he had fired which hit the inside wall after breaking the window 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they had earlier filed Muffisil PS Case No. 1120 against the informant and others. It was submitted that no injury has been caused to anybody. It was submitted that the FIR has been lodged after almost three hours of the incident 7. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR itself it is clear that the accused including the petitioner had real motive to commit the crime as they were accused in the earlier case filed by the nephew of the informant and for getting the same withdrawn they had tried to exert undue pressure. It was further submitted that the allegation in the FIR is corroborated by recovery of empty cartridge. As far as the other case is concerned it was submitted that the same has to be seen on its own merits. Moreover it was submitted that the present FIR has been lodged at 9:45 AM on 14.05.2020 and the time of the incident is said to be 8:30 AM Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.123621 dt.24 08 2021 whereas the petitioner’s side had filed the case on 14.05.2020 at 9:30 AM for an incident which is said to have taken place between 4:00 PM on 12.05.2020 and 10:00 AM on 13.05.2020 and thus the delay in lodging of the said case is almost 24 hours 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J