The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.873 of 2022 1. Kamta Singh @ Kamta Prasad Singh 2. Ankit Kumar Singh 3. Gupteshwar Singh 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manoj Kumar Rajak Versus ..... Appellants …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
of 2018 and on the face of it, no prima facie evidence to support the offences under sections u/s 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act against these appellants and therefore in the interest of justice, it is found that the appellants deserve to get the bail in anticipation of their arrest. Accordingly the appellants above named are directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks from today and on surrender /arrest, they shall be enlarged on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamu at Daltonganj, in connection with Pandu P.S. Case No.98 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that all the appellants will cooperate in the investigation and also they will appear before the learned court below / I.O. of this case as and when required by them, failing which appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned court below for cancellation of the bail. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.11.2022 passed in ABP No.982 of 2022 passed by the learned court below is set- aside. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants For the State Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vishwnath Roy, Advocate : : ----- 5/23.03.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. At the outset, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that one counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State submitting therein that the notice has been properly served upon Bhwo (sister-in-law) of the informant. Despite proper service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of informant-respondent No. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that this criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Palamu at Daltonganj, in anticipatory bail petition No. 982 of 2022, arising in the wake of Pandu P.S. case No. 98 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021, registered under sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of IPC and u/s 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, by which, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the allegations as set out in the FIR are that these appellants along with co-accused persons had assaulted the brother of the informant Sanjay Kumar Rajak and used abusive languages by taking the name of the caste. It has further been pointed out that the entire allegations as made out in the FIR are omnibus and general and no specific overt act has been attributed against anyone of the appellants for using the abusive languages by taking the name of the caste or by assaulting in a specific manner. It has further been pointed out that the co-accused Mantu Singh, who is said to be the main culprit, has been enlarged on bail by learned court below. Further it has been pointed out that the said co-accused Mantu Singh has also filed an FIR while Pandu P.S. Case No. 99 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021 registered under section 341,342,452,379,504,506/34 of IPC, in which, the present informant Manoj Kumar Rajak and the injured Sanjay Rajak are the co-accused persons amongst others. Further the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that the Statements of the independent witnesses examined vide paras 60,61,62,63 of the case diary, by which the entire allegations as made in the FIR, has been falsified with respect to the using of abusive languages by the appellants to the informant and other persons and the dispute arose only because of the payment of the dues of the vehicle ₹1500/-. Further it has also been pointed out that the injured Sanjay Kumar Rajak has sustained only one injury, which is said to be the grievous in nature and no specific overt act against anyone of the appellant has been attributed and the main culprit, if any, has been enlarged on bail by the learned court below and therefore the appellants deserve the privilege of bail. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the injured Sanjay Kumar Rajak has been examined vide para 25 of the case diary and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and also it has been pointed out vide para 53 of the case diary, by which, the said injured Sanjay Kumar Rajak had sustained grievous injury and therefore these appellants do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. It is found that there is a case and counter case between both the parties and the co-accused Mantu Singh, who he is said to be the main culprit, has been enlarged on regular bail by the learned court below. Further it is found that the independent witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution vide paras 60, 61, 62 & 63 namely Harivansh Viswkarma, Pramod Paswan, Shankar Singh and Pradumna Ram have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to these appellants. Further it has also been pointed out that there was a dispute between the parties for a payment of dues amount of the vehicle to a sum of ₹1500/-. It has also been pointed out that there is no specific allegation has been attributed against anyone of the appellants in the FIR for any kind of overt act either with respect to hurling abusive languages by taking the name of the caste or by assaulting the injured person. In view of the aforesaid facts as pointed out, it is found in the light of the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., passed in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1015 and 1016