Dismissed

Asha Jacob v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2021Cr.A(SJ)/67/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The Court held that allegations of untouchability based on caste identity and disease attracted Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, thereby invoking Section 18's bar against bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. The criminal appeal was dismissed. The appellant was directed to surrender within three weeks.

Asha Jacob 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.67 of 2020

Asha Jacob

…… Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Basanti Kumari Ravi ….. Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P ---------

¶9

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.

¶10

---------

¶11

07/Dated: 05th July, 2021

¶12

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.08.2019, passed by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – XII, Ranchi, in connection with SC/ ST P.S. Case No.14 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.5081 of 2016, registered under Section 3(1) (X) 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.

¶13

2. Notice has been issued to respondent No.02, under registered cover with A/D as well as through the concerned police station, but the notice could not be served upon her as she has left the place.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been made on the ground that no offence under the SC/ ST Act is made out and further the allegation is false and it is omnibus in nature. On the above facts it has been submitted that bar of Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act, does not get attracted.

¶15

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶16

5. Perused the records. From bare perusal of the F.I.R, it is evident that the victim had complained regarding untouchability practice by her colleagues where she used to

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

work. She was treated untouchabile for the reasons that she belongs to a Harijan community and also as she was suffering from leucoderma and on the above grounds she was ousted from job.

¶19

The above allegation certainly makes out the offence under the SC/ ST Act and further the offence is serious in nature, as it is a social crime against the mandate of Article 17 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Considering the above allegations and the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act, otherwise also, it is not a case of grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is, hereby, rejected. The appellant is directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today.

¶21

6. The criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

¶22

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶23

Chandan/-

Asha Jacob v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Jacob 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

Mohan Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hajrat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Manjhi Alias Dipak Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand