The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The Court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute and a compromise was reached, the appellants were directed to be enlarged on bail.
Appellants directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties each.
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.
1
1. Niraj Burma @ Niraj Verma 2. Pappu Sonar @ Pappu Soni @ Sonar 3. Vikki Verma @ Vikash Verma 4. Surendra Chauhan 5. Rahul Kumar Mallah .... Appellants Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand 2 . Maina Devi ….. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
For the Appellants :Mr. Shialesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
09/Dated: 02.09.2020
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by A.S.J.-VII-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the matter and as per allegation made in the FIR no offence under the provision of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is made out against the appellants. On completion of investigation the police did not submit charge-sheet for the offence under SC/St Act.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- the informant, has not controverted the same and consented that on intervention of friends and well-wishers both the parties have amicably settled the matter.
4. Heard. As per F.I.R. the dispute had arisen due to engagement of labourers at loading site of Tetulmari Coal Dump. Cases were lodged by both the parties. As per the submission of the counsels now both the parties have amicably settled the matter.
FIR i.e. Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 44 of 2019 (SC/ST Case No. 51 of 2019) was registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/34 IPC and 3(x)(xi)(xii) of SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act & Section 27 Arms Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R no firearm injury was sustained by any person. The nature of injury of the informant does not constitute the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2
Considering the fact that both the parties have amicably settled the matter and have entered into compromise as per Annexur-3, accordingly the appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.S.J.-VIIcum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad, in connection with Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 44 of 2019 (SC/ST Case No. 51 of 2019).
5. With the said direction the appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Pappu / -
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail should be allowed where the parties have amicably settled the matter.
Whether the nature of injury sustained by the informant constitutes an offence under Section 307 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Niraj Burma @ Niraj Verma
The State of Jharkhand
AMITAV K. GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
