Allowed

Dwarika Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 May 2019Cr.A(SJ)/164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Appeal, the High Court set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting anticipatory bail. The Court, finding the likely motive to be malice based on a civil suit between parties, allowed the appeal and directed the release of appellants on bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside. Appellants were directed to be released on bail within four weeks upon surrender, furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties o

Dwarika Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.164 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Dwarika Mahto.

¶4

Baleshwar Mahto @ Baleshwar Prasad Verma.

¶5

Dineshwar Mahto @ Dineshwar Prasad Verma.

¶6

Jogeshwar Mahto @ Jogeshwar Prasad Kushwaha.

¶7

Kameswar Mahto @ Kameshwar Prasad Kushwaha @ Kaleshwar Mahto.

¶8

Dharmendra Verma @ Dharmendra Kumar Verma.

¶9

.......... Appellants. -Versus-

¶10

The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

Sundar Dhobi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : APP For Respondent No.2: Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate -----

¶12

Order No.05 Date: 03.05.2019

¶13

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18^th January, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.45 of 2019, arising out of Complaint Case No.30 of 2017, registered under Sections 141, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the appellants’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant (respondent no.2) and have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. There is general and omnibus allegation against the appellants. Though the respondent no.-2 while replying to the question put by the court below during enquiry has stated that there was no previous enmity with the appellants, yet the said statement is completely false in view of the fact that the appellant no.1 has already preferred Title Suit No.171 of 2007 in the court of Munsif, Giridih in which the respondent no.2 is defendant no.9 (who is also known by the name of Shyamsundar Bhaitha). The present case has been instituted against the appellants with malice just to harass them. No offence under penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out

¶15

-2-

¶16

against the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 oppose the appellants’ prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available record, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. As such, the impugned order dated 18^th January, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.45 of 2019 is set aside.

¶19

Accordingly, the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks from today, are directed to be released on bail, on 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 District JudgeI-cum-Special Judge, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.30 of 2017.

¶20

The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶21

Sanjay/

¶22

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Dwarika Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Mahto 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

Tannu Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rushi Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyamal Kumar Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tanuja Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt.Sabi Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.