High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Chhote Lal Yadav & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar on 21 July, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Chhote Lal Yadav & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar on 21 July, 2011
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Cr.Misc. No.10524 of 2011
                                  Chhote Lal Yadav & Anr.
                                              Versus
                                      The State Of Bihar
                                                with
                                 Cr.Misc. No.18784 of 2011
                                          Kishori Modi
                                              Versus
                                      The State Of Bihar
                                            -----------

03/ 21.07.2011 Both the above stated petitions arise out of Ishipur (Barahat)

P.S. Case no. 67/2010 registered under section 302/34 of the IPC and,

accordingly, both the above stated petitions are being disposed of by

this common order.

Petitioners are named in the first information report and

allegedly, petitioners along with other FIR named accused persons

mercilessly assaulted the deceased with brick and stones.

According to the prosecution case itself, on the alleged date

of the occurrence, one Lalu Yadav and Ritesh Ojha came in the village

and informed the other accused that the deceased had beaten them and

having got aforesaid information other accused including these

petitioners went near the place of the occurrence and after that they

committed murder of the deceased by assaulting him with brick, stone

and by pressing testicle of the deceased.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no.

10524/2011 submits that the informant is not an eye witness of the

alleged occurrence and, as a matter of fact, dead body of the deceased

was seized by a police official lying near the place of occurrence and

after that aforesaid police official gave information to the concerned

police station and then the police party reached there and recovered
2

dead body. It is further contended by him that after getting

information from the police the informant and other witnesses came

there and gave their statements implicating petitioners and other

accused. To fortify his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner

drew my attention towards paras 8 and 29 of the case diary and in para

8 of the case diary, the Investigating officer has incorporated this fact

that having got information from ASI Mahendra Pd. Singh about

lying dead body of a man, entered Sanha in the case diary . At para 29

of the case diary, statement of aforesaid ASI Mahendra Pd. Singh

has been recorded and in the aforesaid para the above stated ASI

Mahendra Pd. Singh has very clearly stated that he was in patrolling

duty and in course of patrolling duty, when he reached near the place

of the occurrence, he found a dead boy lying there and none was

present there and thereafter he informed the Officer Incharge of

concerned police station and before arrival of the Officer Incharge and

other police party, a Bolero jeep came in which co-accused Lalu

Yadav as well as the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no. 10524/2011 and some

other accused were found sitting. The aforesaid persons were detained

and the above stated vehicle was seized by the police officials.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no.

10524/2011 fairly points out that statement of one Laxmi Devi was

recorded by the Investigating officer who stated that on the alleged

date of the occurrence while she was returning from the market in the

evening, she saw petitioners and other accused persons assaulting the

deceased and after that she reported the aforesaid incident to her co-

villagers. It is contended by him that even if the statement of aforesaid
3

witness Laxmi Devi assumed to be true, then also, there is no specific

overt-act against the petitioners rather an omnibus allegation of assault

has been levelled against them.

On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well

as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer

for bail pointing out that half of the face of the deceased was found

completely smashed and the post mortem report corroborates

allegation levelled against the petitioners and other accused. It is also

contended by them that some witnesses claimed to have seen the

alleged occurrence.

Considering the above stated submissions as well as facts

and circumstances, particularly, this aspect of the matter that an

omnibus allegation of assault has been levelled against the petitioners,

let petitioners, Chhotelal Yadav, Pawan Yadav and Kishori Modi, be

released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/-each with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl.

Sessions Judge IV, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial no. 171/2011 in

respect of petitioners- Chhotel Lal Yadav and Pawan Yadav and to the

satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in respect of

petitioner-Kishori Modi in connection with Ishipur (Barahat) P.S.

Case no. 67/2010.

shahid                                           (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)