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.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
