Allowed

Bishnu Sah v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2018Cr.A(SJ)/21/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail appeal of the appellant, setting aside the lower court's rejection of bail. The appellant was directed to release the accused on bond with a deposit of Rs. 2,000 each as interim victim compensation to 21 victims.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Bishnu Sah Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 21 of 2018

¶3

Bishnu Sah … ... Appellant

¶4

Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dilkush Ravidas 3. Anil Kr. Das 4. Dhanjay Ravidas 5. Ganesh Ravidas 6. Baijnath Ravidas 7. Rajesh Kumar Das 8. Anand Kumar Ravidas 9. Kalachand Kewat 10.Brahmdeo Das 11.Mukesh Kr. Sah 12.Raj Kumar Gupta 13.Rahul Kumar 14.Raman Babu 15.Niraj Kumar Rai 16.Amit Kumar Rai 17.Ram Kisun Kewat 18.Mukul Kewat 19.Pradeep Ravidas 20.Pankaj Ravidas 21.Ranjan Ravidas 22. Fatu Ravidas … ... Respondent ------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

-----For the Appellant : Mr. M.K. Sah, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶7

5/ 19.06.2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶8

Though notice was issued to the respondent no. 2 to 22 but no one turned up on their behalf, in spite of repeated calls.

¶9

The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2017 passed in SC/ST Case No. 86 of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail filed by the appellant in connection with Godda(M) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1319 of 2017) registered under Sections 363,370 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(g)(d) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Sections 79/81 of the J.J. Act was rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 23.9.2017 and apart from the alleged

¶11

statement of the owner of the Mill that the appellant has taken the salary amount of the respondent nos. 2 to 22 of this appeal, there is no other materials to implicate the appellant in this case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is ready and willing to pay Rs.2,000/- each as ad interim victim compensation to the victims-respondent nos. 2 to 22, without prejudice to his defence in the case. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 30.11.2017, passed in SC/ST Case No. 86 of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda, be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.

¶12

Learned Addl. P.P. defends the impugned order and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the 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 30.11.2017 passed in SC/ST Case No. 86 of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on depositing demand draft of Rs.2,000/- each drawn in favour of the victims-respondent no. 2 to 22 as ad interim victim compensation and 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-cum-Special Judge, Godda, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 86 of 2017 arising out of Godda(M) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1319 of 2017), during the pendency of the case.

¶14

In case, the appellant deposits the said demand draft in the court, it is directed that notice be issued to victimsrespondent nos. 2 to 22 and the said demand draft be released in their favour forthwith, after proper identification.

¶15

In the result, this appeal stands allowed.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶17

AKT

Bishnu Sah v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Sah 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

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pritam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quarban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chitranjan Mahto Alias Chitu Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pravesh Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Singh Alias Ranjeet K Singh Vs State of Jharkhand