Appeal against bail rejection in an SC/ST Act compensation and offences case. Court allowed bail noting lack of identification by examined witnesses and set aside lower order.
Appellant directed to be released on bail via bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1296 of 2016
Ramjeet @ Ramjeet Mehta … ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. … ... Respondents ------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------
For the Appellant : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------
15/ 10.04.2018 Heard the parties.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed in SC/ST Case No. 15 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Patan P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 364 /34 of the Indian Penal Code but thereafter on application of Investigating Officer under Section 379, 376(D), 302, 201, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been added in the FIR and after commitment charge has been framed under Section 364/149, 376 (D), 379/149, 302/149, 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj rejected his prayer for bail.
After the prayer for bail of the above named appellant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj, a co-ordinate Bench of this court also rejected the prayer for bail in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1150 of 2016. The fresh ground for the prayer for bail is that in the meanwhile 12 out of 13 witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet have been examined and no witness except the PW-12- I.O. of the case has identified the appellant or deposed anything to implicate him in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the material witnesses examined in the case have not mentioned anything against the appellant and even not identified him in the court though he was present at time of their examination in the court. Drawing attention of this Court towards pages 4 to 34 of the supplementary affidavit dated
04.04.2018, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 12 out of 13 witnesses have been examined and no material witness has identified the appellant or deposed anything to implicate him in this case. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 3.4.2016. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be admitted to bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the appellant be admitted to bail. Accordingly the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed in SC/ST Case No. 15 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Patan P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2016, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with SC/ST Case No. 15 of 2016 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 (G.R. No.508 of 2016).
In the result this appeal stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's bail prayer should be allowed given that most witnesses have been examined and none identified him.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramjeet @ Ramjeet Mehta
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
