Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail. Appellant challenged refusal, alleging false case and lack of medical evidence. Court held offence under SC/ST Act is made out under Section 3(2)(v), attracting Section 18 bar. Appeal dismissed.
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 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.179 of 2021
Mumtaz Alam @ Md. Mumtaz Alam
…… Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushma Baski ….. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Tiwari, A.P.P ---------
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---------
03/Dated: 02nd July, 2021
1. The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.03.2021, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Godda, passed in A.B.P. No.167 of 2021, in connection with Boarijore P.S. Case No.29 of 2020, arising out of S.C./S.T. Case No.47 of 2020, registered for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 448, 376, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act read with Section 3 (1) (D) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (For short the SC/ ST Act), whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, to the appellant, has been rejected.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out and further there is delay in lodging the F.I.R and further there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegation of rape. It has further been submitted that since the case is false, the appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. On the above facts, it has been submitted that the anticipatory bail is maintainable.
3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer of grant of anticipatory bail.
- 2 -
4. Perused the F.I.R and the impugned order. On perusal of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, it is evident that the offence under the SC/ST Act is made out, hence bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act will operate against this appellant. Further, the nature of allegation also disentitles the appellant for consideration of anticipatory bail.
In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the court below while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies in view of the offence attracting Section 3(2)(v) of that Act.
Whether the appellant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out or the case is false.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mumtaz Alam @ Md. Mumtaz Alam
The State of Jharkhand
Sushma Baski
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
