Allowed

Quarban Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2018Cr.A(SJ)/437/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against an order rejecting anticipatory bail. The court set aside the lower court order and granted anticipatory bail to most appellants, directing their surrender within four weeks and bail adherence conditions regarding compensation and non-interference with the victim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside anticipatory bail rejected; appeal allowed; appellants granted privileges of anticipatory bail subject to surrender and payment of compensation to the informant.

Quarban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.437 of 2018

¶3

Quarban Ansari

¶4

Muslim Ansari

¶5

Md. Furkan @ Furkan Ansari

¶6

Tahir Ansari

¶7

Muzammil Ansari

¶8

Md. Haji Ansari

¶9

Bashir Ansari

¶10

Zikrullah .... .... …. Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

Laxman Manjhi

¶14

.... .... .... Respondents

¶15

------

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶17

For the Appellant : Mr. A. Shankar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. M.K. Mahto, Advocate

¶18

Order No.06 Dated- 18.06.2018

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for

¶20

the State.

¶21

Though notice was validly served upon the respondent no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶22

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 277 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1009 of 2016 registered under Sections 323/379/354/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of the case, the appellant no.6 Md. Haji Ansari has been arrested hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail has become infructuous so far as it relates to appellant no.6. Therefore, he does not press the appeal on behalf of the appellant no.6.

¶24

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn so far as appellant no.6 Md. Haji Ansari is concerned.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the genesis of the alleged occurrence is a petty land dispute and the offence under the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is added only to make the offence more serious. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no averment in the complaint basing upon which the F.I.R. was instituted to the effect that the appellants are not the member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes nor there is any specific allegation regarding any ingredient of any specific offence punishable under the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hence no offence under the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. It is also submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to pay Rs.2000/each as ad interim victim compensation to the informant respondent no.2 and undertake not to interfere with his possession over the place of occurrence of land during the pendency of the 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the above named appellants i.e. appellant no.1 to appellant no.5 and appellant no.7 and appellant no.8 be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 277 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1009 of 2016, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellants named above i.e. appellant no.1 to appellant no.5 and appellant no.7 and appellant no.8, are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order. In case of the said appellants being arrested by police or surrendering in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, within the stipulated time,

¶28

they will be enlarged on bail on their depositing demand drafts of Rs.2000/- each drawn in favour of the respondent no.2 – Laxman Manjhi and 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 277 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1009 of 2016 till disposal of this case with the condition that they will not interfere with the possession of the informant-respondent no.2 over the place of occurrence land nor they will annoy or disturb him in any manner during the pendency of the case.

¶29

In case the demand draft(s) are deposited by the appellants, learned court below is directed to issue notice to the respondent no.2 – Laxman Manjhi and on his proper identification, handover the demand draft to him forthwith.

¶30

In the result, this appeal stands allowed.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

Sonu/Gunjan-

Quarban Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Quarban Ansari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamila Khatoon Vs Noor Hassan Khan And Ors.

Sharad Chandra Mishra Alias Sharad Chandra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Most Sahodri Devi Vs Lilawati Devi and Anr.

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pritam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fahim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand