Ramji Prasad Sah @ Ramji Sah v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Joseph Murmu
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.860 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.860 of 2022 Ramji Prasad Sah @ Ramji Sah Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Joseph Murmu ..... Appellant …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the State For the Respondent No.2 : : : ----- Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate 4/12.04.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against order dated 19/09/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), Dumka, passed in A.B.P. No. 188/2022, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 121 of 2020, dated 10/10/2020, registered Under Sections 341/323/385/353/504 I.P.C. & U/S 3 (1)(x) of S.C/S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), Dumka, has rejected the prayer for Anticipatory bail of the Appellant. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the allegation against the appellant, being the reporter of the daily newspaper Prabhat Khabar is that he had demanded extortion money of ₹10,000/- from the informant by alleging that the informant and other teachers of the school were misappropriating the money, which was for the distribution of the rice during COVID-19 pandemic period and threatened them that in case of non-fulfillment of demand of rangdari / extortion, he would publish the distorted news against the informant and his colleagues for the misappropriation of the fund in the distribution of rice and the appellant was also alleged to have damaged the school register and other documents of the school. It has been alleged that during the course of the investigation, three independent witnesses have been examined vide para 29 Santosh Roy, 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.860 of 2022 para 30 Mahendra Mandal and para 31 Ram Kumar Mandal, who did not support the case of the prosecution and they have stated that this appellant has not used any abusive language by taking the name of the caste to the informant and there was an altercation between them for the distribution of the rice and thus the case of the prosecution for the offence under SC/ST has not been supported. Further it has also been pointed out that there is no criminal history against this appellant. Further it has also been pointed out that there is a counter case instituted by this appellant vide Ramgarh PS No. 120 of 2020 dated 10/10/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 341/323/379/504/506/34 of IPC against the informant of the present case and other teachers alleging therein that they had assaulted the appellant and snatched away their belongings, when the appellant along with his family members had gone to the place of occurrence for vaccination and also exposed some irregularities in the distribution of the rice during the lock-down period of COVID-19 and therefore in order to save the skin, the informant has instituted the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the informant and one witness, who is also a teacher of the school Dinanath Prasad vide para 5 of the case diary has supported the case of the prosecution and therefore the appellant does not deserve to get the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. In view of the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is found that there is a case and counter case between both the parties. The independent witnesses who have been examined during the course of investigation vide para 29 Santosh Roy, para 30 Mahendra Mandal and para 31 Ram Kumar Mandal did not support the case of the prosecution to the effect that this appellant has hurled abusive languages by taking the name of the caste and no prima facie offence has been supported for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.860 of 2022 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It has also found from the case diary that there is no criminal history against this appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also relied upon the rulings of the Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. as reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and in this view of the matter now it is well settled principal of law that in the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, if the informant / complainant does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the said SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and Section 18-A (i) shall not apply accordingly under the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds it just and proper to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest / surrender on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), Dumka, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 121 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that he will co-operate in the investigation and he will appear as and when required by the IO / special court (SC/ST), Dumka, failing which an appropriate order shall be passed. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 19/09/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), Dumka, passed in A.B.P. No. 188/2022, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 121 of 2020 is hereby set-aside. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)