Irfan Ansari v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sunita Devi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 461 of 2023 Irfan Ansari ..... … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sunita Devi -------- ..... … Respondents.
Legal Reasoning
complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. 9. Prima facie, in the above background, it appears that malafidely the present case has been filed. As such, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to surrender within three weeks from the date of this order and he is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest / surrender by furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2023 arising out of SC/ST Complaint Case No. 08 of 2022, subject to the condition that the appellants will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Court and will remain present as and when required before the -3- learned court / I.O. of this case, failing which appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court for the cancellation of the bail of the appellants. 11. With the above observation this appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.06.2023, passed in A.B.P. No. 183 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka, is hereby, set aside. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -4-
Arguments
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellant ------ : : : : ------ 06/ 01.07.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the State For the Resp. No. 2 A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This appeal is directed for setting aside the order dated 23.06.2023, passed in A.B.P. No. 183 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka, whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellant was rejected and for granting the anticipatory bail to the appellant, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2023 arising out of SC/ST Complaint Case No. 08 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is a sitting MLA of a particular political party and he is a public man and he used to redress the grievance of the local people in the area wherefrom he has been elected for the Legislative Assembly in the State of Jharkhand. He submits that there were certain land disputes between the complainant family and other villagers, which had occurred in the year 2021, which was subsequently with the connivance and influence of the local opposition leaders, given a communal colour attracting political interest in the matter. He draws the attention of the court to the statements made to the -1- complaint petition and submits that three of the witnesses shown in the complaint petition are belonging to a particular political party. He further submits that maliciously the present complaint has been lodged against the appellant and allegations are made that the appellant along with 15-20 persons have come to the place of dharna and abused the complainant by way of taking the caste name, which is false. He further submits that although the victim has stated in camera that this appellant has not come there and his men have come to the spot and that video has also been uploaded in the YouTube channel. He submits that on these backgrounds, the false case has been lodged against the appellant and the cognizance order is also under challenge, which is the subject matter in W.P.(Cr.) No. 638 of 2023 which is still pending. He submits that once mala fidely the case is filed under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this court is competent to allow the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the allegations are made that at the spot, the some persons are reached and they have taken the caste name of the respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has opposed the prayer on the ground that the complainant is not associated with any political party. He submits that the witnesses may have been involved with some of the political parties and since the occurrence took place in the evening that’s why they have been made witness in the complaint petition as only they were found there. He further submits that only the summon has been issued against the appellant and warrant has not been issued against him, in view of that anticipatory bail may not be provided to the appellant and this appeal may kindly be rejected. 6. In view of the above, the court finds that the complaint petition is not affidavited. Time and again, in a mechanical way, the filing of the complaint case has been deprecated by bringing only two witnesses to put the criminal law in motion and reference may be made -2- to the case of Pepsi Food Limited and Another- versus- Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, reported in (1998) (5) SCC 749. 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, the document brought on record by way of filing the supplementary affidavit, clearly suggests that three P.Ws. who have shown as P.Ws. in the complaint petition are associated with a particular political party. The appellant herein is a sitting Member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly of another political party and what specific role has been played by this appellant has not been disclosed in the complaint petition and only bald allegations are made that at the place of occurrence the appellant along with 15-20 other persons have reached the place of agitation and started abusing and threatening the respondent No. 2. 8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act, if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the