High Court allowed appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail. Considering a joint compromise petition between appellants and the complainant, the court set aside the lower court order and enlarged appellants on bail conditions.
Impugned order set aside; appellants directed to be released on anticipatory bail by furnishing bond and sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.93 of 2019
-Versus-
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : APP For Respondent no.2: None -----
Order No.05 Date: 04.04.2019
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27th November, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No.55 of 2016/M.C.A. No.1832 of 2018, in connection with SC/ST Case No.55 of 2016, arising out of C.P. Case No.1136 of 2016, under Sections 323, 457 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the appellants’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant (respondent no.2) and have not committed any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that the appellants and the respondents have amicably settled their disputes and to that effect a joint compromise petition was filed before the learned court below, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the present memo of appeal, however, the learned court below did not consider the same and rejected the appellant’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned APP opposes the appellants’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, whereas no one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice upon him.
-2-
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the appellants and the respondent no.2 have compromised their disputes and in support of the said fact, a copy of joint compromise petition has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the present memo of appeal, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. As such, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhanbad in S.T. Case No.55 of 2016/M.C.A. No.1832 of 2018 is set aside.
Accordingly, the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within 15 days from today, are directed to be released on bail, 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-VII-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case No.55 of 2016, arising out of C.P. Case No.1136 of 2016.
The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to appellants considering their compromise with the victim.
Whether the impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail is liable to be set aside.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Arjun Beldar and others
The State of Jharkhand
Laxman Das
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
