Allowed

Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Apr 2019Cr.A(SJ)/99/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the release of the appellants on bail pending trial in a case concerning business rivalry and alleged abuse. Bail bond and surety conditions were specified.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail and directed the release of the appellants on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.99 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Maheshwar Prasad Singh.

¶4

Narendra Mishra. .......... Appellants.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Ashok Kumar Das. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶8

----For the Appellants : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the State : APP For Respondent No.2: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate -----

¶9

Order No.05 Date: 04.04.2019

¶10

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 21^st January, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-cum-FTC, Bokaro in A.B.P. No.1035 of 2018, in connection with SC/ST Case No.11 of 2018, arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.522 of 2018, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the appellants’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

¶11

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 respondent no.2 has merely been used as tool by the owners of Durga Transport under whom the respondent no.2 used to work. The appellant no.2 earlier lodged a complaint against Sidharth Singh and Ravi Yadav (owners of Durga Transport) for the offences under Sections 323, 384, 385, 386, 504, 506, 120B, 365 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In counterblast of the said case, the owners of Durga Transport got an F.I.R. being Sector-IV SC/ST P.S. Case No.24 of 2016 lodged against the appellants at the instance of the respondent no.2 on 24^th November, 2016. The police investigated the case and submitted final form having found no evidence against them. However, on protest-cum-complaint petition of the respondent no.2, learned Special Judge-I, Bokaro vide order dated 5^th October, 2018 took cognizance of the offences under

¶12

-2-

¶13

Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants, who are associated with Rama Transport, have been implicated in the present case primarily due to business rivalry with the owners of Durga Transport. The allegation that the appellants abused the respondent no.2 by naming his caste is completely manufactured one just to make out a case under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶14

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, oppose the appellants’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are made out against the appellants.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. As such, the impugned order dated 21^st January, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-cum-FTC, Bokaro in A.B.P. No.1035 of 2018 is set aside.

¶16

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-I-cum-Special Judge-cum-FTC, Bokaro in connection with SC/ST Case No.11 of 2018, arising out of Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.522 of 2018.

¶17

The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶18

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶19

Sanjay/

Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshwar Prasad 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

Madan Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Saroj Kumar Suman Vs State of Jharkhand

Saputlal Mehra Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Bharti Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arjun Beldar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand