The High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a prayer for anticipatory bail. The court held that since the offence under the SC/ST Act was prima facie made out, Section 18 applied and bail was not entitled.
Anticipatory bail prayer rejected; appeal against rejection 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.415 of 2020
1. Dinesh Saw
2. Rekha Devi …… Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Basudev Hadi @ Baso Hadi ….. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Sharma, 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.
---------
05/Dated: 14th July, 2021
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.01.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Giridih, in connection with A.B.P. No.1424 of 2019, arising out of SC/ ST Complaint Case No.61 of 2018, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(ii)(xi) (viii) 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 appellants, has been rejected.
2. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.02. Learned A.P.P is present.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no offence under the SC/ ST Act is made out and the allegation against the appellants is false as there is neighbourhood dispute between the parties. It has further been submitted that earlier proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C was initiated against the informant/ respondent No.02 and due to vengeance, the present complaint petition has been filed. On the above facts, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
- 2 -
5. On perusal of the records, prima facie offence under the SC/ ST Act is made out. If the complaint is taken on its face value, the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act will apply. Accordingly the appellants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the court below while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants. Accordingly, the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dinesh Saw
Rekha Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Basudev Hadi
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
