Also heard Mr. K. Munir v. This is an application
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Application is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
The allegation made against the petitioners, as revealed from the FIR, is that, on 03.11.2010, the petitioners being armed with lathi, spade, axe etc., assaulte d Md. Khairuddin i.e. the husband of the informant, thereby causing injuries on his head and abdomen. It has been alleged in the FIR that, Md. Kaser Sheik had g iven blow on the head and shoulder of the said victim with an axe, while Md. Azi zur Rahman had assaulted the husband of the informant with a Fala (i.e. spear), causing penetrating injury, resulting prolapse of abdominal material. The medical report in respect of the said injured reveals, that the injured sust ained penetrating wound measuring 4x3x4 cm. over his left upper abdomen. The Med ical Officer opined that the injury appears to have been caused by sharp weapon and that there was prolapse bowel through the wound. The Medical Officer further opined that the injury sustained by the said injured person was grievous in nat ure.
From the materials on record, it appears that the said injury was caused by Md. Azizur Rahman i.e. the petitioner No.3. Though the informant alleged that Md. Ka ser Sheik also assaulted the injured on his head with axe, there was no injury r eport in support of the said allegation. Considering entire aspect of the matter and the facts and circumstances of this case, I find sufficient materials against the petitioner No.3 and as such I don’ t find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner No.3, namely Md. Azizur Rahman. However, considering the materia ls collected by the Investigating Agency, I find no sufficient reason, requiring custodial detention of the other petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 4. Accordingly, it is directed that, in the event of arrest of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4, namely Md. Kaser Paramanik @ Kaser Sk, Md. Dulal Paramanik @ Dulal S k, and Mustt.
Operative part
Ashful Nessa, in connection with the above mentioned case, they sh all be released on bail of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand)only each with on e surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. Howe ver, it is directed that, the petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as and when so required for the purpose of investigation and they shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner. With the above direction, this A.B. Application is disposed of. Return the Case Diary.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.