Dismissed

Mayank Kumar Bishwkarma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Oct 2022Cr.A(SJ)/191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals for anticipatory bail filed against orders refusing bail. The Court held that allegations under the SC/ST (PoA) Act attract the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the said Act, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeals filed for grant of anticipatory bail are dismissed.

Mayank Kumar Bishwkarma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.191 of 2022

¶2

¶3

Mayank Kumar Bishwkarma @ Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma

¶4

		…. Versus	….	Appellant
1.	The State of Jharkhand
2.	Taramuni Kumari	….	….	Respondents
		With
	Criminal Ap	peal (S.J.) No.311 of ----	2022

¶5

1. Manish Kumar @ Manesh Kumar 2. Nasim Alam @ Nasim Hawari

¶6

		Versus	….	….	Appellants
1.	The State of Jharkhand
2.	Taramuni Kumari		….	….	Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

¶10

For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Adv. [in both cases] For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. [in Cr. App. (S.J.) No.191/22] Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. [in Cr. App. (S.J.) No.311 /22] For the Res. No.2 : Ms. Archana Kumari Singh, A.C. [in both cases]

¶11

¶12

08/Dated: 19^th October, 2022

¶13

1. The present appeals have been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and learned Amicus Curiae.

¶15

3. The appeals have been filed against the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 in A.B.A. Nos.47 of 2022 and 52 of 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with Barwadih P.S. Case No.04 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 354, 379, 448, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(ii)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The case is presently pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Latehar.

¶16

4. The present criminal appeals have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in spite of provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

¶17

5. Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire allegation is false and malicious and

¶18

as such provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act does not get attracted in the present case. On the above basis, the prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.

¶19

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned amicus curiae have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that there is allegation against these appellants for the offence of atrocities under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is applicable.

¶20

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the allegation levelled against these appellants for the offence of atrocities under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is applicable. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the present criminal appeals are, hereby, dismissed.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶22

Amar/-

¶23

Mayank Kumar Bishwkarma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Kumar Bishwkarma 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

Gopal Prasad Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Labour Employment and Training

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Through Its Senior Manager Priya Ranjan Sinha Vs Ramu Mochi And Anr.

The Management of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director Anil Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khublal Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Chaurasiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Alias Manesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand