Allowed

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo Alias Devbarat Nath Sahdeo v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2018Cr.A(SJ)/84/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal appeal, setting aside an order that rejected a prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court held that since the main allegations were against others and not the appellant, the impugned order was not sustainable. The appellant was directed to surrender and be enlarged on bail upon depositing compensation. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside prayer for anticipatory bail allowed Appellant directed to surrender and be enlarged on bail on depositing demand draft.

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo Alias Devbarat Nath Sahdeo Vs The… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.84 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo @ Devbarat Nath Sahdeo

¶4

.... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarita Kumari .... .... .... Respondents -----CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : None ------

¶5

Order No.04 Dated- 03.04.2018

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶7

Though notice issued to the respondent No.2 under registered post with A/D has been received but no one turns up on her behalf even after repeated calls.

¶8

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.328 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in connection with Basia P.S. Case No.66 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1185 of 2016 registered under Section 365, 366, 384, 506, 328, 342, 468, 471 & 34 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 where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla 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 the main allegation is against Shashi Kant Bhagat and Sanu Nayak and there is no allegation against the appellant of having either committed any offence under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or for that matter any other offence and that no offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is made out against the appellant. It is lastly submitted that 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 Sarita

¶10

Kumari 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.

¶11

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and defended the impugned order.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.328 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant, named above is directed to surrender in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla within four weeks and in case of his so surrendering or arrested by police, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) in favour of the respondent No.2 namely Sarita Kumari 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Basia P.S. Case No.66 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1185 of 2016 with the condition that he will not threaten the victim in any manner during the pendency of the

¶13

case .

¶14

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

¶15

In the result this appeal stands allowed.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Animesh/

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo Alias Devbarat Nath Sahdeo v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devbrat Nath Shahdeo Alias Devbarat Nath Sahdeo 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

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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

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

Ram Bali Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arbind Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

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

Rinku Singh  Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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

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

Ram Bali Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arbind Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinku Singh Amrika Singh Vs State of Jharkhand