Allowed

Bhubneshwar Poddar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2019Cr.A(SJ)/728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal challenging rejection of an anticipatory bail petition in an S.C./S.T. Case. The High Court, finding no prima facie case under Section 3(s) of the S.C./S.T. Act due to an incorrect place of occurrence alleged, set aside the impugned order and enlarged the appellants on bail with conditions and victim compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellants enlarged on anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs. 25,000 each as security and Rs. 20,000 deposit towards victim compensation.

Bhubneshwar Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.728 of 2019

¶3

Bhubneshwar Poddar

¶4

Biru Poddar @ Mahavir Kumar @ Birudh Poddar

¶5

… … Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Naresh Turi … … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. R.R. Ravidas, Advocate

¶12

¶13

08/04.12.2019 Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, learned counsel

¶14

appearing on behalf of the appellants.

¶15

2. This appeal has been filed for the following relief:

¶16

“The present memo of criminal appeal is being filed on behalf of the appellants against the impugned order dated 19-06-2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge – I, Deoghar, in A.B.P. No.579 of 2019, in connection with S.C./S.T Case No.98/2017, registered under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, whereby and where under, the learned Additional District Judge – I, Deoghar, was pleased to reject the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants, and now the case is pending in the court of Additional District Judge – I, Deoghar.”

¶17

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that earlier one case being S.C./S.T. Case No.98 of 2017 arising out of Devipur P.S. Case No.44 of 2017 was filed by the complainant under Section 341, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (s) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as aforesaid Act of 1989). He submits that after investigation of the case, final form was submitted and the complainant was issued notice, pursuant to which, the complainant filed protest petition on 23.11.2017 which was numbered as Protest cum S.C. & S.T. Case No.68 of 2018. The learned counsel submits that the present case is a case of malicious prosecution, in as much as, the witnesses as well as

¶18

¶19

the complainant of the present case are accused in the case filed by the present appellants and/or their family members. For this, he refers to a proceeding under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which was instituted between the parties and numbered as Cr. Misc. Case No.635/16 and ultimately the said case was dropped vide order dated 15.04.2017 as the period was already over. He further submits that one F.I.R was also registered by the present appellants against the informant of the present case in which the witnesses are the accused. He further submits that all the witnesses of the present case are interested witnesses.

¶20

4. The learned counsel further submits that in the complaint petition, the date, place and time of occurrence have been mentioned as 30.08.2016 at about 7 a.m. at the door of the complainant. As per the complaint petition, it has been mentioned that the accused were taking photograph of the women and children of the family of the complainant and when it was objected, the accused assaulted the complainant and also used filthy language. It is also mentioned in the complaint petition that when alarm was raised, the witnesses rushed to save the complainant. He further submits that from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 4 Govind Mandal, who is accused in the criminal case filed by the appellants, the place of occurrence has been indicated to be the crossing near the house of the complainant. So far as witness no.3 is concerned, he has stated that he reached the place of occurrence after he heard the alarm and so far as witness no.2 is concerned, he has simply stated that he has only mentioned about assault and no allegation under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, 1989 has been made. So far as the witness no.1 is concerned, he has stated upon a query from the court that the place of occurrence is the house of Naresh Turi and he has also stated that at the relevant point of time, he was at his home. Learned counsel for the appellants

¶21

¶22

submits that the case is counter blast to the F.I.R, filed by the appellants against the complainant party but considering the nature of allegation and the place of occurrence as is mentioned by the P.W.3, it appears that no case under the provisions of Section 3 (s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. Learned counsel submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court below and accordingly, the learned court below has rejected the application for anticipatory bail by referring to Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1989. Learned counsel further submits that so far as allegation under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are bailable. He further submits that in order to buy peace, he is ready to pay some amount of compensation to the opposite party no.2 by way of victim compensation subject to the result of the case.

¶23

5. Counsel for the opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that the learned court below has rightly held that the anticipatory bail filed by the appellants is not maintainable. However, on instruction, he submits that if this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants then heavy compensation should be paid and the same should not be less than Rs.30,000/-.

¶24

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Mr. S.K. Shrivastava, supports the submission made on behalf of the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶25

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that admittedly, there are case and counter case between the parties and the witnesses are also party in the earlier criminal case filed by the appellants/their family members as back as in the year 2013 and/or in the proceeding under Section 107 of Code of

¶26

¶27

Criminal Procedure. This Court finds that earlier the case was registered as S.C./S.T. Case No.98 of 2017 arising out of Devipur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2017 under Section 341, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (s) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and final form was submitted but thereafter the protest petition was filed and the present case arises out of protest petition. From perusal of the complaint petition, the date, time and place of occurrence has been shown as 30.08.2016 at about 7 a.m at the door of the complainant. The complainant in her complaint petition has stated that when the appellants assaulted the complainant, she raised an alarm and the witnesses came to rescue her. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that the place of occurrence is in the house of Naresh Turi (Opposite Party No.2).

¶28

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and only for the purposes of considering the point of maintainability of anticipatory bail application of the appellants, this Court at this stage, is of the view that prima facie no case under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (s) of S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. However, this observation is confined only for the purposes of considering the anticipatory bail application of the appellants and will have no bearing on the merits of the case before the learned court below. This Court finds that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court below while holding that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.06.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge – I, Deoghar, in A.B.P. 579 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The appellants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon surrender or arrest and in the event of their arrest/surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge the appellants on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

¶29

¶30

Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge – I, Deoghar, in A.B.P. No.579 of 2019, in connection with S.C./S.T. Case No.98/2017, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C with further conditions as follows:

¶31

i) The appellants would cooperate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

¶32

ii) The appellants will submit attested copies of their Aadhar card and their phone numbers before the court below at the time of furnishing bail bonds, which he will not change during the pendency of this appeal without permission of this Court.

¶33

iii) The appellants would deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- before the learned court below. It is made clear that the deposit of this amount will not prejudice the case of the appellants in any manner. The said amount be released in favour of the opposite party no.2 after due identification, by way of victim compensation and the same will be subject to the final result of the case before the learned court below.

¶34

iv) The appellants would not disturb or annoy the opposite party no.2 or his family members in any manner what so ever.

¶35

9. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.

¶36

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶37

Saurav/

Bhubneshwar Poddar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhubneshwar Poddar 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

Bhuneshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nityanand Paul Alias Nityananda Paul Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Mister Alias Chottu Korwa Alias Shivji Korwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jawed Akhtar Vs State of Jharkhand through Indo Shekhar Chaturvedi

Satendra Kumar Das Alias Satyendra Kumar Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Suresh Bouri And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand