Allowed

Bholu Alias Vivek Mukhi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail in an FIR under IPC and SC/ST Act. Court allowed appeal, set aside order rejecting bail, and directed appellants to surrender to claim bail. Notation emphasized lack of public view/report on caste status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail set aside. Appellants directed to surrender within four weeks to avail bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with sureties.

Bholu Alias Vivek Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.372 of 2018

¶2

Bholu @ Vivek Mukhi

¶3

Shivam Ghosh @ Tera

¶4

3. Animesh Ghosh @ Ludru
4. Anjan Ghosh @ Bandar	....	....	…. Appellants
*Versus*
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Suresh Mukhi	....	....	.... Respondents

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

------ For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate ------

¶8

Order No.03 Dated- 09.04.2018

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State 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 27.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 342 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.2996 of 2017 registered under Sections 341/323/307/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur 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 nowhere it has been mentioned in the written report that the appellants are not the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the occurrence took place in any place within public view, hence no offence punishable under the penal provision of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. It is further submitted that the learned court below also failed to take note of the fact that a compromise has been effected to between the appellants and the respondent no.2 and good sense has prevailed between the parties. It is also submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the appellant no.2 belongs to Ghasi caste and is a member of the Scheduled Castes. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, be set aside and the appellants be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that in view of the compromise, they do not have any objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is fit case where the above named appellants be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 342 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.2996 of 2017, 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 by police or surrendering in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, within the stipulated time, they will be enlarged on bail 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 342 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.2996 of 2017.

¶14

This appeal stands allowed.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX at the cost of Rs.50/- per page to be borne by the appellants.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu/Gunjan-

Bholu Alias Vivek Mukhi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholu Alias Vivek Mukhi 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

Akhtar Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Gupta Alias Sandeep Gupta Alias Tun Tun Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Samrul Ansari Alias Samrul Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchanan Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramjeet Alias Ramjeet Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand and Anr.

Om Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.