Partly allowed

Runa Devi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Dec 2023Cr.A(SJ)/815/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals were filed against rejections of anticipatory bail in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court allowed bail for daughters but denied it for the mother and father, partly allowing one appeal and dismissing the other.

What did the court decide?

Appellants Soni Kumari and Banti Kumari are to surrender and be granted bail on furnishing bonds with two sureties each; bail applications for Runa Devi and Suresh Prasad Gope were rejected.

Runa Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 815 of 2022

¶3

Runa Devi, wife of Suresh Prasad Gope

¶4

Soni Kumari

¶5

Banti Kumari

¶6

Both daughter of Suresh Prasad Gope,.

¶7

All residents of New Drip, near Durga Mandir, Loyabad, PO Bansjora, PS Putki, District Dhanbad. ... … Appellants Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Respondents with

¶9

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 914 of 2022

¶10

Suresh Prasad Gope @ Suresh Prasad Yadav @ Suresh Gope, son of Gokul Gope, resident of New Drip, near Durga Mandir, Loyabad, PO Bansjora, PS Putki, District Dhanbad. … … Appellant

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶15

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Akash Kumar Lal, Advocate; Mr. Harsh Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP ------ Order No.15/Dated: 20th December, 2023

¶17

When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the parties have appeared.

¶18

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 815 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VI cum Spl. Judge SC/ ST, Dhanbad in ABP No. 2889 of 2020 in connection with Putki PS Case No. 71 of 2020 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 39 of 2020 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 914 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 28.9.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 2143 of 2022 in connection with Putki PS Case No. 71 of 2020 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 39 of 2020 for the offence under sections 341,323, 504,506 and 34 IPC and 3(1) (iii), (xi), (xix) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereby and whereunder anticipatory bail applications of the appellants have been rejected.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there has been delay of four days' in lodging the FIR which has not been explained. He has further submitted that appellants have never abused the informant by taking any caste name. Therefore, no case under sections 3(1) (iii), (xi), (xix) of SC/ST

¶20

-2-

¶21

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 is not made out. He has further submitted that occurrence is of 06.5.2020 and there was complete lock-down from 25.3.2020 to 31.5.2020 on account of COVID-19 then how any activity can take place in the vicinity of temple as this temple is not an exception to the direction of the order of lock-down and therefore no such offence has taken place. He has further submitted that this case may be result of minor altercation which has occurred before. He further submits that earlier cow of the appellants had gone to drink water at a particular place and got electrocuted by the water pump of the informant for which they had gone to ask the informant where minor altercation had taken place and the informant was fearful that an FIR would be lodged in this regard and therefore the present case was lodged by the informant pertaining to abuses and throwing of plate from the hand of Chameli Devi. The learned counsel further submits that the appellants have also cooperated with the police by responding to notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. He further submits that informant in his re-statement has also not said anything about taking of caste name by the appellants. He further submits that all the witnesses belong to the same caste of the informant and therefore their evidences are totally biased. Moreover, the temple is not an open temple but it has door. Finally he has submitted that in spite of notices served upon the informant he has not appeared because he knows that allegations made against the appellants in these cases are fully untrue.

¶22

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned APP submits that delay has been explained as in the bottom part of the written report, it is indicated that villagers had tried to comprehend the situation and, therefore, some delay had occurred. The learned PP further submits that firstly Putki PS Case No. 71 of 2020 was lodged by the informant and thereafter Putki PS Case No.72 of 2020 was lodged by the appellants. The learned counsel submits that the appellants had lodged the case to save their skin. He has further submitted that argument of cow being electrocuted and so on is only to divert the attention of the Court from the actual facts. He has further submitted that regarding lock-down during the said period and pointed out that at paragraph no. 11 of the case diary shows that inspection of the place of occurrence was done and found that temple was very much functioning. He has further submitted that informant in his re-statement has supported the case of prosecution. He has then argued that Chameli Devi in paragraph no. 12 of the case diary has fully corroborated the allegations and

¶23

-3-

¶24

narrated about involvement of Suresh Prasad Gope and his wife Runa Devi. He has also submitted that several independent witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. Naresh Prasad in paragraph no. 13 of the case diary, Om Prakash in paragraph no. 14 of the case diary and Munna Kumar in paragraph no. 15 of the case dairy have fully corroborated the statements made in the written report as well as what has been stated by Chameli Devi. He especially stressed on the evidence of Chameli Devi which was also supported by two of the independent witnesses that abuses were made and the victim was humiliated by taking caste name. Therefore, he submits that appellants does not does deserve anticipatory bail.

¶25

Having heard learned counsels for both sides, noted the written report of the informant, statements of Chameli Devi during investigation which was corroborated by two of the independent witnesses, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant no.1,namely, Runa Devi in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 815 of 2022.

¶26

However, I am inclined to release the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Soni Kumari and Banti Kumari in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 815 of 2022 on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the appellants Soni Kumari and Banti Kumari are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today and on their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VI cum Spl. Judge SC/ ST, Dhanbad in ABP No. 2889 of 2020 in connection with Putki PS Case No. 71 of 2020 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 39 of 2020, subject to the conditions that (i) the appellants shall attend the trial regularly, (ii) the appellants shall furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards with an undertaking that they will not change their number during pendency of the case.

¶27

Further, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant, namely, Suiresh Prasad Gope in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 914 of 2022.

¶28

Accordingly, Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 815 of 2022 is partly allowed and Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 914 of 2022 is dismissed.

¶29

KNR (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

Runa Devi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Runa Devi and Ors. 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

Akhilesh Singh Alias Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Shanker Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Prasad Gope Alias Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ariz Khan Alias Ariz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Baidya Vs the State of Jharkhand