Allowed

Gajendra Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Nov 2021Cr.A(SJ)/461/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed an appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. While noting that the SC/ST Act bars Section 438 proceedings, the court found female appellants in a neighbourhood dispute entitled to protection, directing them to surrender and grant bail upon production of the order.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw appeal for one appellant granted; female appellants directed to surrender and enlarged on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

Gajendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.461 of 2020

¶3

Gajendra Prasad Singh 2. Geeta Devi

¶4

Suman Kumari @ Suman Singh @ Suman Devi …… Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. Neetu Kumari ….. Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P For the Resp. No.02 : Mrs. Gouri Debi, Advocate ---------

¶10

06/Dated: 01st November, 2021

¶11

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.07.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1^st -cum- Special Judge -cumFTC, Bokaro, in A.B.P. No.377 of 2020, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected in connection with Sector – 12 P.S. Case No.12 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(c)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (For short the SC/ ST Act).

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal so far as appellant No.01 namely, Gajendra Prasad Singh, is concerned, with a liberty to approach the court below for grant of regular bail after surrender.

¶13

3. Permission is accorded. The appellant No.01 will surrender in the court below within two weeks from today.

¶14

4. So far as appellant Nos.02 & 03 are concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they are females and dispute has arisen because of the calls and SMS made by the son of the appellant No.02. It has been alleged that these appellants had abused the victim. The appellant No.02 namely, Geeta Devi had spitted

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

over the victim. It has been submitted that the appellants are the next door neighbors of the victim and this is a neighbourhood dispute. It has further been submitted that in the year 2018 also the victim had alleged the similar allegation against the appellants and the matter was compromised between the parties. On the above facts, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.

¶17

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P, assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.02, has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act bars the maintainability of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the cause of the dispute between the parties is calls and SMS made by the son of the appellant No.02.

¶18

Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that appellant Nos.02 & 03 are females, they deserve the protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the appellant Nos.02 & 03 are directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of the copy of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1^st -cumSpecial Judge -cum- FTC, Bokaro, in connection with Sector – 12 P.S. Case No.12 of 2020, on the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C, and also to the condition that the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhar Cards and also submit their mobile numbers before the learned court below which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

¶19

7. In the result, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.

¶20

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶21

Chandan/-

Gajendra Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Prasad Singh 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

Sunny Kavita Tirkey Vs Ashish Emmanuel Tirkey

Bhuvneshwar Rout Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anshu Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchanand Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand