1.Utpal Gopalan, aged about 55 years son of Rajeshwar Lal Das, resident of Sahay v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Doman Marandi, son of not known to the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 158 of 2024 ---- 1.Utpal Gopalan, aged about 55 years son of Rajeshwar Lal Das, resident of Sahay Colony Gandhi Tola, PO and PS Sadar District Singhbhum (West) 2.Santosh Kumar Suman, aged about 49 years son of Jagdish Prasad Singh, resident of Tungri Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S.Sadar, District Singhbhum (West) .... Appellants -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Doman Marandi, son of not known to the appellants, resident of Clerk Colony, Qr. No.14 Tungri, PO Chaibasa, PS Muffasil, District Singhbhum (West.) .... Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
of the courts to examine whether a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out or not. As discussed, Section 18 stipulates that in any case which involves the arrest of any person on the accusation of having committed an offence under the Act, 1989, the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC would not be available to the accused. We have deliberated on the significance of the expression "arrest of any person" appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 and are of the view that Section 18 bars the remedy of anticipatory bail only in those cases where a valid arrest of the accused person can be made as per Section 41 read with Section-60A-of Cr.P.C.” 9. In para 61 of “Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala” (supra) it has been held that not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. Para 61 of the judgment in “Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala” (supra) reads as under: “61. The words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in the text Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste Identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or Intimidation. Not every Intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the notions of ’purity’ and ’pollution’, etc. that it could be said to be an insult or Intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989” 10. In view of above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants, and as such, the appellants, above named, are hereby directed to 3 surrender before the learned court concerned within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the appellants, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Special Judge, SC/ST, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in SC/ST Case No.9 of 2018 [in connection with SC/ST Muffasil P.S.Case No.5 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.451 of 2014], subject to the conditions that appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or undue influence to the prosecution witnesses and the appellants shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given to them by the said learned court till the disposal of the trial. 11.
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- :- For the Appellant(s) For the State :- For the Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mrs Priya Shrestha, Advocate Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate ---- 6/17.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in A.B.P. No.384 of 2023 whereby prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail in connection with SC/ST Muffasil P.S.Case No.5 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.451 of 2014, for the offence under section 420 of the IPC and section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been rejected, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in SC/ST Case No.9 of 2018. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under section 3(1)(r)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that the allegations are said to be of 20 days before and the case was registered after 20 days. He submits that the charge sheet has already 1 been submitted and the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that the police has not taken the appellant in custody and now the learned court is calling upon. He submits that the ingredients of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer and submits that the ingredients of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out and it has occurred in public view and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the anticipatory bail is not maintainable in light of section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that the allegations are there and in view of that, the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that in the case diary, the materials have also come against the appellants. 7. Looking to the contents of the F.I.R it transpires that the occurrence is of June, 2014 and the F.I.R was registered on 20.7.2014. It is stated in the complaint that the complaint was made against the Commissioner (Kolhan) before the Chairman, SC/ST Committee which was returned back and thereafter the present complaint is filed. Certain action was also taken by the appellant where the informant was working which has also been disclosed in the contents of the FIR and the police has not arrested. 8. A reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala” 2024 SCC Online SC 2249. The police has submitted chargesheet and the learned court has taken cognizance. Thus, it is clear that police has not arrested the appellants under section 41-A of the 2 Cr.P.C. and if such a situation is there, para 41 of “Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala” (supra) is helping the appellants. Para 41 of the of the said judgement reads as under :- “41. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that Section 18 of the At 1989 does not impose an absolute fetter on the power
Decision
This appeal is allowed and disposed of and the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in A.B.P. No.384 of 2023 is hereby set-aside. 12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, 4