The High Court of Jharkhand allowed criminal appeals and quashed orders rejecting bail. Directed release of appellants on bail bonds of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties despite limited corroboration.
Released on bail furnishing bonds of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties of the like amount.
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 (SJ) No.343 of 2023
Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma ..... … Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Taramuni Kumari …. …. Respondents
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.342 of 2023
1.Manish Kumar @ Manesh Kumar
2.Nasim Hawari @ Nasim Alam
3.Raja Alam ..... … Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Taramuni Kumari …. …. Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Appellant s : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. --------
03/21st August, 2023
1. The present criminal appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 17th May, 2023 and 20th May, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application Nos.412 of 2023 and 428 of 2023 respectively, arising out of Barwadih P.S. Case No.04 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the appellants’ prayer for bail has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per F.I.R. allegations, the occurrence is of the house of the informant/victim and the appellants Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma and Manish Kumar do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe while Nasim Alam and Raja Alam both belong to Scheduled Caste like that of victim. The occurrence is shown of the house of the informant and the same was not caused in public view. As such no
- 2 -
alleged offence under S.C./S.T. Act is made out. So far as the allegations made in the F.I.R. are concerned, though the same were corroborated by the victim in her re-statement, yet there is no other cogent evidence in corroboration of the same. The appellants have been languishing in jail since 30th April, 2023 and 17th May, 2023 respectively having no criminal antecedent.
3. Learned A.P.P. appearing in both the cases vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the occurrence is of the house of the informant/victim, as such, no one was present at that time. It was victim alone, who had corroborated the prosecution story. Therefore keeping in view the place of occurrence even if there is no corroboration, the impugned order passed by the learned court below does not bears any infirmity.
4. The prosecution story is that the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself with these allegations that on 9th January, 2022 at 06:30 p.m. she was going to her house, amid the way, Nasim Alam had spread spray over her mouth hurling abuse. She shouted on his act and he fled away from there. After 10 minutes of this occurrence Mayank Vishwakarma, Manish Kumar and Raja Alam, all intruded in her house and addressed her as prostitute of a low caste. They caught hold of her and began to outrage her modesty. Mayank Vishwakarma had also caught hold of her hair and also threatened her and these accused persons also took her mobile phone and Rs.5300/- from her house.
- 3 -
5. This prosecution story is corroborated by the informant/victim in her restatement. Though in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the case diary, it is stated that Rajan Kumar and Santosh Kumar Yadav both had supported the prosecution story under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but their statement is not made part of the case diary. The statement of the victim was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the submissions made and materials available on record, the impugned orders passed by the learned court below needs interference. Accordingly, these criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned court below are hereby quashed and set aside.
7. In consequence thereof, the above named appellants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellants where only the victim corroborated the prosecution story in a caste discrimination case.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail under Section 161 Cr.P.C. suffers from infirmity requiring quashing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma
Manish Kumar @ Manesh Kumar
Nasim Hawari @ Nasim Alam
Raja Alam
State of Jharkhand
Taramuni Kumari
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
