ORDER

The record is put up today with some defect notes submitted by the office.

2. However, the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner being assisted by almost all the learned counsels of the Patna High Court, cutting across the lines of their affiliation to the respective Associations insist this Court to take up the matter considering the urgency and assurance is made on behalf of the petitioner that by Tomorrow i.e. on 6th March, 2024, the defects will be removed. On such assurance the instant writ petition is taken up for admission hearing.

3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava is a Junior Advocate of Patna High Court. He is pursuing his profession as a buding Advocate staying in a rented accommodation at Patna within the jurisdiction of the Jakkanpur Police Station.

4. The fact remains that there was some altercation on 1st March, 2024 between the petitioner his contenants learned Advocates, who used to reside in the same rented accommodation and the landlord who is arrayed as respondent no. 9, in the instant writ petition, over parking of vehicle. After sometime of altercation, the landlord pounced back over the informant and his associates being other junior Advocates of this Court, who reside in the same tenanted premises with some unknown goons. The petitioner was assaulted and his friend Mr. Ranveer Parwat, Advocate was also severely assaulted with the help of kitchen knife, as a result of which, he received bleeding injury on the left eye brow affecting his left eye also. They were initially medically treated in a local hospital. Thereafter they were shifted to Patna Medical College and Hospital. The informant went to lodge F.I.R. to the Police Station. Initially Police was reluctant to accept the F.I.R., but on much persuasion F.I.R. was received and a case was registered bearing Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024, under Sections 323/308 of the I.P.C.

5. As a follow up action, the landlord (respondent no. 9) was called to the Police Station and he was honourably released under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C.

6. Other part of the story is, in order to save the landlord and the goons, who were involved in severely assaulting the learned Advocates, a complaint was made to be lodged by the wife of the landlord bearing Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024, under Section 354 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and his Advocate friends, who reside in the same tenanted premises.

7. Surprisingly enough, when the F.I.R. discloses an assault upon an Advocates with the help of a kitchen knife, which is a sharp cutting weapon. There is no explanation as to why at least F.I.R. was not lodged under Section 326 of the I.P.C. considering the gravity of injury. Secondly, when the F.I.R. discloses that the unarmed young persons pursuing their profession as Advocates, were attacked by the landlord with a bunch of anti-socials and specially, when one of the Advocate was assaulted by sharp cutting weapon on the most vital part of the body, why on due consideration of the prima facie intention of the accused persons, no case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. was instituted. Thirdly, why no case was instituted under Sections 147/148/149 of the I.P.C. when on perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is found that the assailants came in pursuance of their common object to cause physical assault, grievous hurt and in such a manner where intention can be prima facie ascertained of attempt to commit murder.

8. On the contrary, a case under Sections 323 and 308 of the I.P.C. was registered against respondent no.9 and other unknown persons. The respondent no. 9 was called on the Police Station and he was released under Section 41 (A) of the Cr.P.C. after interrogation.

9. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this is not a fit case where the accused persons should be released on an undertaking under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C.

10. The legal profession as well as the duties discharged by the learned Advocates are the on