Sanjit Kumar Soni v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gayatri Devi
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.348 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.348 of 2022 Sanjit Kumar Soni ..... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gayatri Devi …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : For the State : ----- Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari, Advocate Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP 6/02.05.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State submitting therein that the notice has been properly served upon Respondent No. 2 Gayatri Devi, but despite proper service of notice, the informant has not appeared in this case. 3. It has been submitted by the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that this appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant in A.B.P. No. 2777 of 2021, arising out of SC/ST Case No. 277 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 354 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (X) of SC/ST Act and now the case is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST, Dhanbad. 4. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 complainant had instituted one earlier case vide SC/ST P.S. Case No. 2 of 2018, under which the police after investigation has submitted the final report and thereafter the complainant-respondent No. 2 has filed the protest petition, upon which the learned court below had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 354 & 504 of IPC and under Section 3 (X) of the SC/ST Act, which is arising out of the Dhanbad 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.348 of 2022 SC/ST PS case No. 2 of 2018 dated 21/01/2018 registered under sections 354/504 and under Section 3 (X) of the SC/ ST Act. 5. It has been pointed out that the present protest petition was filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 in retaliation of the Jharia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2018 instituted by one Pushpa Devi for the offence punishable under sections 376,323,343,346 /34 of the IPC and the said Pushpa Devi was the family member of the appellant and the case was instituted by her against Mamta Devi, who is said to be the witness No. 2 of the present complaint case as well as the husband and the daughter of the Mamta Devi, who are close relatives of the complainant respondent No. 2 and therefore it has been submitted that the police, after investigation has rightly submitted the final report against the appellant, but the learned trial court did not apply its judicial mind and passed the summoning order dated 20/01/2020 on the protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2. 6. Further it has also been pointed out that the two accused persons namely Geeta Devi and Nasima Khatoon have also been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this court in criminal appeal is No. 723 of 2020 and the case of this appellant also stands on the similar footing and no specific overt act has been attributed against this appellant, which is evident from the court’s query on the solemn affirmation of the complainant-respondent No. 2 Gayatri Devi, who stated that this appellant had assaulted her by which she has sustained the injury and there was no allegation of any kind of overt act for the offence punishable under section SC /ST Act is substantiated from the versions of the complainant-respondent No. 2 Gayatri Devi herself on her solemn affirmation and therefore the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail in the light of the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., passed in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1015 and 1016 of 2018. 7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, but did not controvert the fact about the earlier case instituted by one Pushpa 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.348 of 2022 Devi vide Jhariya P.S. Case No. 10/2018 dated 12/01/2018 registered under sections 376,323,343,346/34 of the IPC. It has also not been denied by the learned APP that on earlier occasion, for the present case the police after investigation had submitted the final report, which was instituted by the complainant respondent No. 2 vide Jharia SC/ST P.S. Case No. 2 of 2018 registered under sections 504/34 of the IPC and under Section 3 (X) of SC/ST Act. 8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 9. In the light of the persuasive submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and proper to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the appellant Sanjit Kumar Soni is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of surrender /arrest, who is directed to surrender within 4 weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad, in A.B.P. No. 2777 of 2021, arising out of SC/ST Case No. 277 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the further subject to the condition that the appellant will appear on each and every date before the learned court below, where the criminal case is pending, failing which appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below. 11. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No. 2777 of 2021, arising out of SC/ST Case No. 277 of 2018 is set- aside. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)