Allowed

Arbind Kumar And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/151/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the appellants' prayer for anticipatory bail. The court set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's rejection order, noting a compromise between parties and finding the offence under the SC/ST Act not fully made out. The appellants were directed to surrender within four weeks and granted bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of anticipatory bail set aside; anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties; direction to surrender within four weeks.

Arbind Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.151 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

1. Arvind @ Arbind Kumar
2. Ajit Kumar *Versus*	....	....	…. Appellants
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kali Ram	....	....	.... Respondents

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Appellants : Mr. S. K. Soni, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate ------

¶7

Order No.06 Dated- 03.04.2018

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶9

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2018 passed in A.B.P. No.1188 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.143 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.2430 of 2017 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 436, 427, 452 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that nowhere in the written report it has been mentioned that the appellants are not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and that the occurrence took place within public view nor the appellants caused any member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to leave his village or his house from the village, hence, no offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x)/ 3(1) (xv) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that a compromise has been effected to between the parties and a good sense has been prevailed between them. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the appellants be given the privilege of anticipatory

¶11

bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that in view of the compromise, they do not have any objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail hence the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 passed in A.B.P. No.1188 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellants, named above are directed to surrender within four weeks and in case of their so surrendering or arrested by police they will be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.143 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.2430 of 2017.

¶14

In the result this appeal is allowed.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Animesh/

Arbind Kumar And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbind Kumar And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Kabir Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav Alias Sukar Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Bali Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo Alias Devbarat Nath Sahdeo Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Baleshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rinku Singh  Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Kabir Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav Alias Sukar Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Bali Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo Alias Devbarat Nath Sahdeo Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Baleshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand