Allowed

Ajay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 May 2019Cr.A(SJ)/49/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellants' appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The court set aside the Single Judge's order and granted bail conditional upon a compensation deposit and furnishing of sureties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13th December, 2018 was set aside; the appellants were enlarged on anticipatory bail conditioned upon depositing Rs. 20,000 as interim compensation.

Ajay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.49 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Ajay Singh.

¶4

Shailendra Singh.

¶5

Sunil Singh.

¶6

Bittu Singh @ Bittu Kumar.

¶7

Dipak Kumar @ Dipak Singh. 6. Lav Kush Singh @ Lav Kush Kumar. 7. Rajesh Singh @ Rajesh Kumar. .......... Appellants. -Versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Kishun Rajwar. .......... Respondents. -----

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

----For the Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP For Respondent no.2: Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate ----- Order No.06 Date: 09.05.2019

¶11

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 13^th December, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.1136 of 2018, arising out of Gawan P.S. Case No.112 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.3633 of 2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(v)(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.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the informant (respondent no.2) due to previous enmity and to put pressure upon the appellants to withdraw Title Suit no.56 of 2017 filed by the appellant no.2-Shailendra Singh against the respondent no.2 and others for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the plot in question. No incident as alleged by the respondent no.2 has taken place. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during investigation of the case are mostly from the side of the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under the penal provision of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to pay suitable ad-interim victim

¶13

-2-

¶14

compensation in favour of the respondent no.2 without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the present case and as such they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 while opposing the appellants’ prayer for anticipatory bail submit that during investigation several witnesses have supported the allegation levelled by the respondent no.2 in the complaint.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. As such, the impugned order dated 13^th December, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.1136 of 2018 is set aside.

¶17

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 with the condition that they shall deposit a demand draft of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) before the court below as ad-interim victim compensation in favour of respondent no.2 without prejudice to their rights and contentions and 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Gawan P.S. Case No.112 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.3633 of 2017.

¶18

The demand draft deposited by the appellants shall be released by the learned court below in favour of the respondent no.2-Kishun Rajwar on his due identification.

¶19

The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶20

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶21

Sanjay/

Ajay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh 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

Vivekanand Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sarwar Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nageshwar Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Swaroop Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amanuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand