Allowed

Baleshwar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/161/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the appellants' petition for anticipatory bail. The court set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order, noting the lack of averments regarding caste status in the police report and a settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected for bail set aside; anticipatory bail granted with 4-week surrender directive and Rs.10,000 bond condition.

Baleshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.161 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Baleshwar Yadav

¶4

Shyamlal Yadav .... .... …. 3. Narayan Yadav Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rukwa Devi .... .... .... Respondents

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

------ For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ------

¶8

Order No.03 Dated- 03.04.2018

¶9

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

¶10

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.1429 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.139 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.2468 of 2017 registered under Section 341, 323, 325, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that there is no averment in the written report that the appellants are not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and that the occurrence took place within public view, hence, no offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the 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 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 aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellants be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail hence the impugned order dated 21.12.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.1429 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.139 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.2468 of 2017.

¶14

In the result this appeal is allowed.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Animesh/

Baleshwar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baleshwar Yadav 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.

Arbind Kumar And Anr. 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.

Arbind Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand