Allowed

Bhim Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2020Cr.A(SJ)/1071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand preferred an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The court allowed the appeal noting that both parties had amicably settled the dispute arising from a labour engagement dispute, and no charge-sheet was filed despite FIR allegations involving IPC offences and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount.

Bhim Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANC Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1071 of 2019

¶3

1. Bhim Paswan

¶4

2. Jaleshwar Turi @ Jageshwar Turi

¶5

.... Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2. Panwa Devi ….. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶10

For the Appellants : Mr. Shialesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. For the Respondents : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

¶11

09/Dated: 02.09.2020

¶12

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by A.S.J.-VII-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

F.I.R. i.e. Tetulmari P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 (SC/ST Case No. 50 of 2019) was registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/354/307/364/504/506 of 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.

¶17

Considering, the fact, that both the parties have

¶18

¶19

amicably settled the matter and have entered into compromise as per Annexure-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. 43 of 2019 (SC/ST Case No. 50 of 2019).

¶20

5. With the said direction the appeal is, hereby, allowed.

¶21

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶22

Pappu / -

Bhim Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Paswan 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

Gole Paharia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdev Yadav Alias Ramdeo Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kumar Raut Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Das Alias Manoj Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khairullah Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niraj Burma Alias Niraj Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand