Allowed

Jay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 May 2019Cr.A(SJ)/52/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail, the High Court set aside the lower court's order. The appellate court found false implication and granted bail on conditions, including a stay on visiting the occurrence place.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with Rs. 20,000 bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to annoy inhabitants or visit the place of occurrence.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 52 of 2019

¶2

Jay Singh … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bhola Ram ... … Respondents

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶4

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the Respondent no. 2 :- None

¶5

03/10.05.2019 The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act, 1989), Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case no. 77 of 2017 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 323, 379, 427 and 504 of the I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 27 of Arms Act, whereby the learned court below has rejected the application for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.

¶7

As per the office report, the notice issued to the respondent no. 2 has been received by his nephew. Thus, there is deemed service of notice upon the respondent no.2. However, no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶8

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the respondent no. 2. In fact, the present case lodged by the respondent no. 2 is a counterblast to an F.I.R. being Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 34 of 2017 lodged by co-accused Deepak Singh against the informant and others on 10.05.2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. in which investigation is continuing. Even on perusal of the written report of the respondent no. 2, it would appear that there is a general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons. The false implication of the appellant and other accused persons is also apparent from the fact

¶9

-2-

¶10

that almost all the male members of the concerned Tola have been dragged in this case. All the offences except Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 are bailable in nature. Since, the case is completely concocted one, no offence under the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989 is made out. Thus, the appellant may be given privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand opposes the appellant’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. As such, the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, the SC/ST Act, 1989, Palamau at Daltongaj, is set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, the appellant above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks from today before the court below, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, the SC/ST Act, 1989, Palamau at Daltongaj in Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case no. 77 of 2017, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not annoy the inhabitants of ‘Dushadh Tola’ and will not visit the place of occurrence till the pendency of the case in the court below.

¶14

The present criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶15

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶16

Ritesh

Jay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay 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

Ajay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nageshwar Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Swaroop Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neelam Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Roya Ram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Kumari Tuddu Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance