1. Ludo Choudhary, Aged about 26 years, Son of Sanjay Choudhary, 2. Mithu Choudhary v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Suresh Harijan, Aged about 59 years, Son of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 227 of 2024 1. Ludo Choudhary, Aged about 26 years, Son of Sanjay Choudhary, 2. Mithu Choudhary @ Umesh Yadav @ Mithu Kumar, Aged about 23 years, Son of Dhurkheli Choudhary. 3. Rohit Choudhary @ Ashish Kumar Yadav, Aged about 27 years, Son of Vijay Choudhary. 4. Sunil Choudhary @ Anuj Yadav, Aged about 26 years, Son of Nakli Choudhary. All are resident of Village Aashadi Madhuri, P.O. & P.S.- Poraiyahat, District- Godda. ..... … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Suresh Harijan, Aged about 59 years, Son of Dukhan Harijan, Resident of Village- Aashadi Madhuri, P.O. & P.S.- Poraiyahat, District- Godda. ..... … Respondents --------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellants For the State For the Resp. No. 2 I.A. No. 9954 of 2024. ------ : : : ------ Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. Mr. P.K. Choudhary, Advocate. 06/ 25.11.2024 This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay of 106 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant are not able to prepare themselves to prefer this appeal, in view of that such delay has occurred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 have jointly opposed the prayer on the ground that in light of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after 180 days, the limitation cannot be condoned. 4. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been considered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Versus State of U.P.. & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 975, wherein that part has been struck down. 5. It is further well settled that the order of any Full Bench of -1- any constitutional Court is binding upon other High Courts, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 673. 6. In view of the above, the court finds that the sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 106 days, in preferring the present appeal. As such, the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed and the
Decision
same is disposed of. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 227 of 2024 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 8. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda, in A.B.P. No. 795 of 2023, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, whereby, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been dismissed by the learned court, the case is pending in that court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there was earlier dispute with respect to idol emersion of Saraswati Puja and pursuant to that Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 was lodged against the appellants. He submits that the learned court has examined the case diary and has found that in the supervision at this stage, the case under the IPC Sections are only made out. He further submits that falsely and with ulterior motive, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are tried to be made out in the complaint petition, which was later one converted into the FIR. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the appellants. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that the allegations are there against the appellants. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has adopted the said argument of learned counsel appearing for the State and he further adds that the appellants have taken the name of the respondent No. 2 by his caste and the filthy language has also been -2- used, in view of that the learned court has rightly rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants. 12. From the complaint petition, it transpires that the allegations are made of taking the caste name of the respondent No. 2, however, what filthy language has been uttered by the appellants is not disclosed in the complaint petition. It was pointed out that earlier also, with regard to emersion of the idol, certain litigation was there between the parties. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the case diary, in which, he has found that in the supervision, only the IPC Sections are to be made out and he has observed that the ingredients of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made out. If such a situation is there and prima facie case is not made out against the accused, the anticipatory bail can be entertained by the court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala” (2024) INSC 625. 13. In view of above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 14. Accordingly, the above named appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today and in the event of their surrender / arrest, the appellants shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned 1st ADJ-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Court, Godda, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, subject to conditions that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat 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 Court till disposal of the trial. 15. This appeal is allowed and disposed of and the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 795 of 2023 in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, is hereby set aside. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -3-