Allowed

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

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/2131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Kerala High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application. This three judge bench of theHigh CourtJharkhandHeld, the appellants should be given anticipatory bail on depositing Rs.10,000/- as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside. Appellants directed to surrender within four weeks and enlarge on bail upon depositing Rs.10,000/- as interim compensation and furnishing bond

Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav Alias Sukar Yadav And Ors. Vs The… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2131 of 2017

¶3

Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav @ Sukar Yadav

¶4

Mahadeo Yadav

¶5

.... .... ….

¶6

1. Sajni Yadav @ Sajani Devi Appellants Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand 2. Mulkhi Devi .... .... .... Respondents

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

------ For the Appellants : Mr. P. Pranay, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶11

Order No.05 Dated- 02.04.2018

¶12

IA. No.9471 of 2017

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has no objection regarding the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶15

On being satisfied with the ground stated in the petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

¶16

This interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2131 of 2017

¶19

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in connection with PCR Case No.480 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. Case No.154 of 2015 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323/427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x), (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶20

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 complaint that the appellants are not the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the occurrence took place in a place within public view nor there is any allegation against the appellants of giving any false and frivolous information to any public servant, hence no offence under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out and the offences punishable under Sections 323/427 are bailable in nature. It is further submitted that the co-accused with similar allegation has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.07.2017 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.916 of 2017. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are ready and willing to pay Rs.10,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant without prejudice to their defence in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of learned court below be set aside and the appellants be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Learned Addl.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 defended the impugned order and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶22

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the appellants be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in connection with PCR Case No.480 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. No.154 of 2015, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellants named above, are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order. In case of the appellants being arrested or surrendering in the court of A.S.J-I, Deoghar within the stipulated time, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- drawn in favour of informant-Mulkhi Devi and on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.S.J-I, Deoghar in connection with PCR Case No.480 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. No.154 of 2015.

¶23

In case the demand draft is deposited by the appellants, learned court below is directed to issue notice to the informant-Mulkhi Devi and on her proper identification, handover the demand draft to her forthwith.

¶24

This appeal stands allowed.

¶25

Sonu/Gunjan-

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Kanchan Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Shafiquee Alam Alias Md Safique And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lakha Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Anand Prasad Mehta Alias Anat Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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

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

Kanchan Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Shafiquee Alam Alias Md Safique And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lakha Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Anand Prasad Mehta Alias Anat Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rinku Singh  Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand