Santosh Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Late Uma Shankar Prasad, Samrajya Apartment 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. 240 of 2024 ---- Santosh Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Late Uma Shankar Prasad, Samrajya Apartment, New A.G. Colony, P.O. – Doranda, P.S. – Argora, District - Ranchi .... Appellant -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Doman Marandi, son of not known to the appellant, resident of Clerk Colony, Qr. No.14 PO Tungri, PS Muffasil, Town Chaibasa District Singhbhum (West.) .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
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 --3-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024 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.” 8. 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” 9. In view of above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant, and as such, the appellant, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court concerned within six weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the appellant, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail --4-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024 bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in SC/ST (Mufassil) Case No.05 of 2014 corresponding to SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of 2018 subject to the conditions that appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or undue influence to the prosecution witnesses and the appellant shall appear before the trial court as and when required by the said learned trial court till the disposal of the trial. 10. This appeal is allowed and disposed of and the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in SC/ST (Mufassil) Case No.05 of 2014 corresponding to SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of 2018 in A.B.P. No.77 of 2024 is hereby set-aside. 11. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. Sangam/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) --5-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- ---- For the Appellant For the State For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate :- :- :- Mr. Manjeet Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate ---- 08/24.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in SC/ST (Mufassil) Case No.05/2014 corresponding to SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of 2018 in A.B.P. No.77 of 2024 whereby prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa. --1-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a treasury officer posted at Jamtara and falsely the said case has been lodged against the appellant. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under section 3(1)(r)(s) 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 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. He submits that there is no allegation against the appellant and the appellant has not been sent up for trial and even the protest petition was not filed, however, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the appellant. 4. 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. 5. 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 --2-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024 that, the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that in the case diary, the materials have also come against the appellant. 6. Looking into 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. The appellant has not been sent up for trial and no protest petition was filed. However, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the appellant. 7. 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 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 of the courts to examine whether a