Allowed

Sumit Chauhan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2021Cr.A(SJ)/102/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal filed against rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016. Court found the appeal maintainable as the case showed malicious misuse of the Act by the victim to settle a departmental grievance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for release upon arrest or surrender within three weeks, bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Sumit Chauhan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 102 of 2021

¶3

Sumit Chauhan … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kusum Kumari … … Respondents ---

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶5

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate

¶7

---

¶8

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶9

¶10

04/02.08.2021: The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶12

This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in A.B.P. No.12 of 2021 arising out of Lohardaga S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No.1 of 2021 registered under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)/3(i)(s)/3(i)(z a) (E) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

It has been submitted that in spite of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that this is a case of misuse of the process of the Court.

¶14

Referring to the allegation made in the FIR, it has been submitted that there is no allegation that the victim has been abused in public view, rather tone of allegation suggests that the victim is aggrieved by the complaint made to the higher authorities. Further,, counsel for the appellant has relied upon Annexures-2 and 3 of the memo of appeal, wherein notices have been issued to the alleged victim for her non-performance. Further, it has been noticed that the fake medical certificate has been submitted in her reply. Further, from mere perusal of Annexure-4, it appears that the Superintendent of Jail, Lohardaga, has recommended for removal of the victim. Referring to the above facts, submission has been advanced that it is a case of misuse of provision of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and further, main grievance appears to be against the departmental proceeding initiated by the Superintendent of Jail, Lohardaga. It has been further submitted that the victim

¶15

has right under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to prosecute the perpetrator of crime and it is not a license for prosecution.

¶16

It has been submitted that bar under Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not available and as such, the appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶17

On the other hand, counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer and submission has been advanced that since she has been abused and as such, Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and as such, present appeal is not maintainable.

¶18

Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on records, it appears that show cause has been issued against the victim for non-performance of the duties and producing fake medical certificate. Further, on complaint by lady victim, response has been asked from the Jail Superintendent and the Jail Superintendent in his reply, has given details of the misconduct of the alleged victim and has recommended for her removal from service. It further appears that it is a case of misconduct by the victim and to get rid off, the allegation has been made, which prima facie appears to be malicious.

¶19

In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that this is a case of misuse of provision of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is granted privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No.1 of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and also on the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of the Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

¶20

Accordingly, instant criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶22

Ravi/-

Sumit Chauhan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Chauhan 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

MD Imran Ansari Alias Rajan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Kumar Singh Alias Sonu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sidharth Sankar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand