AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Apprehending his arrest, the sole petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 48 of 2017 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 448, 452, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. PP for the State.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was free fight between the petitioner and the informant party. In connection with the same occurrence, the neighbor of the petitioner has also lodged an FIR which has been registered as Mango P.S. 49 of 20017 and 341, 323, 504, 427 and 34 of IPC . Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rahisuddin & Ors. vs. State { (2013) vol. 0 Supreme (Delhi) 1222} wherein the Court has referred to the principle of law settled by Hon''ble Apex court of India in the case of Hari Kishan & State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 regarding the facts which will constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Pravat Kumar Mishra vs. State of Orissa reported in 1996 0 Supreme (Ori) 88 in that case also, where all the injuries were sustained by the victim were found to be simple in nature and the doctor opined that such injury was not sufficient to cause death, it was held that the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that this petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner of having fired a shot from pistol upon Anand Mohan Prasad aiming at him and when the same misfired the petitioner assaulted on his head of the victim by means of sabal(Crow bar) and the injury report of the Anand Mohan Prasad says that he suffered grievous injury on his head and the CT scan of brain and scalp shows hemorrhage in the brain and also fracture of bone. Hence, learned Addl. PP submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and in view of the principal of law settled by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr . reported in AIR-2012 SCC-1676, this is not a fit case, where the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and seriousness of the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.