The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 293 of 2024 1. Isha Vishwakarma, aged about 22 years, D/o Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Pappu, Resident of- Turitola, Gutusai, P.O. Chaibasa P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand 2. Mariya Vishwakarma @ Masiya vishwakarma, Aged about 20 years, D/o-Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Pappu, Resident of Turitola, Gutusai, P.O. Chaibasa P.S. - Muffasil Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand; 3. Ayush Vishwakarma, Aged about - 18 years, S/o- Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Pappu, Resident of-Turitola, Gutusai, P.O Chaibasa P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand; 4. Nitu Vishwakarma, Aged years, W/o-Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Pappu, Resident of Turitola, Gutusai, PO Chaibasa P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum, … … Appellants Jharkhand; about-41 Versus
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case for applicability of provisions of the Act of 1989 the bar created by Section 18 and Section 18-A (2) shall not apply. 7. This court is of the view that aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration while holding that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This Court further finds that the chance of false allegation cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that immediately prior to the incident, the appellant no. 1 had lodged a case against the son of respondent no. 2 in serious allegation of stalking etc. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to release the appellants on bail in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of one month from today on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Spl. Judge SC/ST Act, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in connection with S.C./S.T. Chaibasa P.S. case no. 4 of 2022 corresponding to S.C./S.T. Case No. 22 of 2022 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.[ now section 482(2) of The Bhartiya 3 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and also subject to following conditions: (i) One of the bailors should be close relative of the appellants. (ii) The appellants shall fully co-operate with the trial. (iii) The appellants shall deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number which they shall not change during the pendency of this case. 9. This criminal appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in A.B.P No. 116/2024 is set aside. 10. It is made clear that the observations made in this order will not have any bearing in the trial and will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court. 11. Let this order be immediately communicated to the Court concerned through ‘FAX’. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4
Arguments
1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manoj Kumar Azad, Aged about 48 years, S/o Sri Ramanand Paswan, Resident of Gandhi Tola Near Xevir Puliya P.O. + P.S. Chaibasa Sadar, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellants For the State --- : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate : Mr. Bipin Bihari, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP --- 03/24.07.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment/ order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in A.B.P No. 116/2024 whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellants has been rejected. The case arises out of S.C./S.T. Chaibasa P.S. case no. 4 of 2022 for the alleged offence u/s 323/504/506/34 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act corresponding to S.C./S.T. Case No. 22 of 2022 and the case is now pending in the court of Learned Spl. Judge SC/ST Act, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has made two-fold submissions. He has submitted that after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted only under Sections 504 and 506/34 of IPC, but the learned court has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323/504/506/34 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 4. The learned counsel submits that on the face of the allegation, the entire incident had taken place within the four walls where the accused persons said to have entered and uttered certain objectionable words and also assaulted the victim. The learned counsel submits that the case is a result of counter blast in as much as the appellant no. 1 had filed a case being Mufassil Case No. 123 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 against the son of the informant for alleged offence under Sections 341/323/325/354D/427 and 509 of IPC and immediately after a couple of days i.e. on 22.08.2022 the present case has been lodged. The learned counsel has also submitted that the son of the informant used to stalk her and has also beaten in her college and arising out of the incident, the entire family of the appellant no. 1 has been made accused. The learned counsel relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma versus State of Uttarakhand passed in Cr. Appeal No. 707 of 2020 paragraph 11,12, and 14 which in turn has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Ors. versus Standing Counsel & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. He submits that the incident was not in public view nor was in public place nor any person from outside was viewing the incident and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned court holding that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable calls for interference. He submits that on account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the present case appears to be a case of counter blast pursuant to the F.I.R. instituted by the appellant no. 1 against the son of respondent no. 2. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not dispute the fact that upon investigation, the police did not submit 2 charge sheet under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however the learned court has taken cognizance under the said sections. He has also submitted that the notice has been served upon the informant, however the informant has not entered appearance in the present case. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the place of occurrence as is apparent from the F.I.R., this court is of the view that prima facie offence under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out as the offence had not taken place in public view. This Court is of the view that in such circumstances the anticipatory bail was maintainable. Considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan versus Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 paragraph 10 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the complaint does not make out a