Allowed

Arjun Vishwakarma v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/57/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed an appeal against an order rejecting anticipatory bail. The court held the case was fit for granting anticipatory bail, setting aside the impugned order, and directed the appellant to surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail set aside; appellant granted privilege of anticipatory bail and directed to surrender within four weeks.

Arjun Vishwakarma Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.57 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Arjun Vishwakarma	.... *Versus*	....	….	Appellant
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bhogen Soren	.... ------	....	....	Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

------ For the Appellant : Mr. A. N. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate ------

¶6

Order No.06 Dated- 17.04.2018

¶7

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

¶8

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.1371 of 2017 by the learned 1^st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in connection with Lapung P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.3133 of 2016 registered under Section 323/354/504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and where under the learned 1^st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that nowhere in the written report, it has been mentioned that the appellant is not a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes nor there is any allegation that the appellant used force or assaulted the victim with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim hence no offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is made out in the facts and the circumstances of the case. It is lastly submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) as ad interim victim compensation in favour of the respondent No.2 namely Bhogen Soren without prejudice to his defence in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and defended the impugned order.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the appellant be given the privilege of anticipatory bail accordingly the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.1371 of 2017 by the learned 1^st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant, named above is directed to surrender within four weeks and in case of his so surrendering or arrested by police he will be enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal on depositing a demand draft of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand) in favour of the respondent No.2 namely Bhogen Soren without prejudice to his defence in this case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi in connection with Lapung P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.3133 of 2016.

¶12

In case the demand draft is deposited by the appellant, learned court below is directed to issue notice to the respondent No.2 namely Bhogen Soren and on his proper identification, handover the demand draft to him forthwith.

¶13

This appeal stands allowed.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Animesh/

Arjun Vishwakarma v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Vishwakarma 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

Binay Singh Deo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Prasad Alias Dilip Kumar Alias Deelip Kumad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Ram Alias Binod Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jainul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand