Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has set aside an unusual condition imposed by the Patna High Court directing the trial court to verify injury caused upon a victim in an assault case before allowing pre-arrest bail to an accused.

"Obviously, after coming to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, such a condition could not have been imposed as it cannot be termed as a condition of bail," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

While granting anticipatory bail to the accused, the high court had imposed the condition that the trial court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify whether the victim suffered any injury or not.

In the event, if Dhiraj Kumar (the victim) suffered any kind of injury, even simple in nature, then the present anticipatory bail order shall not be acted upon with respect to petitioner only, the high court had said.

The petitioner Baliram Yadav alias Baliram Kumar Nirala challenged the validity of the high court's order on November 7, 2022.

The top court modified the high court's order passed by a single judge bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma, allowing the petitioner's plea.

Yadav had approached the high court, apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 379, 354, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was alleged that owing to a dispute relating to land, Yadav, along with co-accused persons and 10-15 unknown criminals came to the house of the complainant. It was claimed that Yadav assaulted Dhiraj Kumar with 'Gandasa' causing injury on the head.

As the petitioner's counsel asserted that Dhiraj Kumar did not suffer any injury, the high court, though allowed the plea for pre-arrest bail, went on to impose the condition to ascertain the injury before accepting the bail bond.

Case Title: BALIRAM YADAV @ BALIRAM KUMAR NIRALA  VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS