In a criminal appeal against an order denying bail in an SC/ST case, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside the lower court's rejection and directed the release of the appellants on bail, noting the main accused was already freed.
Impugned order set-aside; appellants directed to be released on bail with bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 161 of 2019
03/09.05.2019 The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.01.2019 passed in SC/ST Case No. 222 of 2017 by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj for the offences registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/307/452/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r) & (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the learned court has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitionersappellants.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the respondent no. 2. The learned court below failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 2 himself was an aggressor. The fardbeyan of the respondent no. 2 would itself suggest that no overt act has been attributed against the appellants, rather there is a general and omnibus allegation against them and other accused persons. It is further submitted that so far as the main accused Kalim Ansari is concerned, he has already been enlarged on regular bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 512 of 2018. Hence, the appellants may be given the privilege of regular bail.
No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2 though the notice issued to him has been received by his brother.
The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of
Jharkhand though opposes the appellants’ prayer for regular bail, yet he accepts the fact that the main accused Kalim Ansari has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record as well as keeping in view that the main accused Kalim Ansari has already been granted bail, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail. Hence, the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in SC/ST Case No. 222 of 2017 is hereby set-aside.
Accordingly, the appellants above named are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with SC/ST Case No. 222 of 2017.
The present criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants charged under IPC and SC/ST Act should be released on bail considering the main accused is already on bail.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the prayer for bail is correct given the lack of overt acts against the appellants.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amanuddin Ansari
Mannu Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Bihari Bhuiyan
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
