AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Arpit Kumar undertakes to remove the following surviving defects within a period of two weeks. viii.
Statement with regard to other relief(s) may be given by way of S.A. ix(i) Name of petitioner no. 2 in para-1 and 3rd para of impugned order differs.
Hence, its correctness at entire petition will depend upon removal of this defect.
(ii) Name of P.S. stated in registered part of F.I.R and impugned order differs. Hence, its correctness at entire petition will depend upon removal of
this defect.
(iii) T/C of page no. 16 may be verified and corrected from its original page.
Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects, on requisition being made, within the same time.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P and Mr. Vikesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant.
Petitioners seek protection of anticipatory bail in terms of section 438 of the Cr.P.C in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 169/2020
instituted under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribag.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the objection of throwing cow dung and other garbage on the road, Informant has alleged that
these petitioners who are father and two sons abused the Informant and also assaulted him and his daughter-in-law with lathi and tangi which resulted
in injury on his head and leg. However, petitioners are completely innocent in the matter and the instant case has been lodged only to harass them.
Therefore, they may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that no offence is made out under section 307 of the IPC since
the Informant himself slipped down on the road and suffered some minor injury.
Learned Special P.P and learned counsel for the Informant have opposed the prayer. They submit that the allegations are not only serious, but
injury report corroborates grievous assault on the head. The injury report taken note of in the impugned order also shows that the Informant has
sustained head injury which was grievous in nature. Therefore, petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submissions of the parties and also considering the seriousness of the allegation and
consequent grievous injury on the body of the Informant, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their
prayer is rejected.