Allowed

Anil Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Dec 2019Cr.A(SJ)/895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act was allowed. The High Court directed the release of the appellant on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount each.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 895 of 2019

¶3

¶4

… … Anil Singh Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand … … 2. Ramjee Ram Respondents

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, A.P.P.

¶9

¶10

03/18.12.2019 Heard Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶11

This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in Hussainabad P. S. Case No. 06 of 2019 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶12

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated on account of a dispute between the Up-Mukiya and the members of the Panchayat Committee. It has been stated that the wife of the appellant is Up-Mukiya of the Panchayat whereas the informant is a member of the Panchayat Committee. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is in custody since 03.06.2019.

¶13

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the appellant.

¶14

It appears from the First Information Report that the dispute arose with respect to taking of electric connection from the house of the informant which was objected to by the informant and which allegedly resulted in the informant being abused in the name of his caste. The implication of the appellant on account of the dispute between the Up-Mukiya and the member of the Panchayat Committee cannot be ruled out. The appellant has remained in custody for more than six months.

¶15

Regard being had to the above, while setting aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in Hussainabad P. S. Case No. 06 of 2019, the appellant is directed to be released on bail

¶16

-2-

¶17

on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Hussainabad P. S. Case No. 06 of 2019, SC/ST Case No. 17 of 2019.

¶18

This appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶20

Umesh/-

Anil Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singh v. 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

Sunil Kharia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Chandra Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahmat Ansari Alias MD Rahmat Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vidya Prasad Gupta Alias Vidya Shankar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand