Allowed

Rushi Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 May 2019Cr.A(SJ)/71/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellant on regular bail from judicial custody after finding his implication to be questionable and the prosecution counsel absent.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

Rushi Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.71 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Rushi Das. .......... Appellant.

¶4

-Versus1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Surdu Birua. .......... Respondent. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Appellant : Mr. Nutan Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State : APP ----- Order No.05 Date: 02.05.2019

¶5

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11^th December, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.294 of 2018, arising out of Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.38 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. (SC/ST) No.03 of 2016 (S), registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the appellant’s prayer for grant of regular bail has been rejected.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the informant (respondent no.2) and has not committed any offence as alleged. The appellant is not named in the first information report and he has been implicated on the basis of restatement of the informant, which shows that his implication in the present case at the instance of the respondent no.2 is an afterthought. The appellant is in judicial custody since 3^rd October, 2018 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite valid service of notice upon him.

¶8

Learned APP opposes the appellant’s prayer for regular bail.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP and on perusal of the materials available on record and on keeping in view that the appellant is in judicial custody since 3^rd October, 2018, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant on regular bail. As such, the

¶10

-2-

¶11

impugned order dated 11^th December, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.294 of 2018 is set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa in connection with Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No.38 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. (SC/ST) No.03 of 2016 (S).

¶13

The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶14

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶15

Sanjay/

Rushi Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rushi Das 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

Sri Prabir Gorai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nimai Chandra Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Chhabra And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tannu Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Saw Alias Chhoti Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand