Allowed

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2023Cr.A(SJ)/343/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand allowed criminal appeals against bail rejection orders ̶ Previous sessions court rejected bail in case alleging allegations against four appellants appellant mayank kumar viswakarma manish kumar nasim hawari and raja alam were denied bail in barwadih p s case 04 of 2022 high court quashed orders and directed release on bail bonds

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting bail quashed and set aside appellants directed to be released on bail furnishing bonds of Rs.20,000 with two sureties of like amount

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.343 of 2023

¶3

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma ..... … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.Taramuni Kumari …. …. Respondents

¶7

With

¶8

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.342 of 2023

¶9

1.Manish Kumar @ Manesh Kumar

¶10

2.Nasim Hawari @ Nasim Alam

¶11

3.Raja Alam ..... … Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶16

For the Appellant s : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. --------

¶17

03/21^st August, 2023

¶18

1. The present criminal appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 17^th May, 2023 and 20^th 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.

¶19

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

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

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 30^th April, 2023 and 17^th May, 2023 respectively having no criminal antecedent.

¶22

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.

¶23

4. The prosecution story is that the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself with these allegations that on 9^th 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.

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶29

Rohit

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Kumar Vishwakarma 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

Manoj Paswan Alias Kailu Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Sah Alias Pradeep Saw Alias Pradeep Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mushtaque Ansari Alias MD Mustaque Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Alias Manesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinchu Tudu Alias Tudu Alias Paya Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand