Pintu Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Pintu Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned court below erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellants, where counsel contended that the allegations of outraging modesty and caste-name abuse were against other accused persons and not against the appellants.

Court's answer

There is specific allegation of outraging the modesty of the informant and allegation of committing offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellants.

Ratio / Principle

The same allegations have also emerged in the investigation and are recorded in paragraph nos.25 and 27 of the case diary produced during argument by the learned counsel for the respondent State.

Key takeaways

Paragraph no.83 of the case diary discloses three other cases against appellant no.1.ratio¶22
There is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellants; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refusal upheld – appeal dismissed. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.166 of 2024 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; decided 21.11.2024) challenged the order dated 12.03.2024 in A.B.P. No.635 of 2024 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad rejecting anticipatory bail for appellants Pintu Bose and Md.Kurban @ Md. Kurban Khan, accused in Katras P.S. Case No.35 of 2024 pending before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad. Counsel for the appellants argued the allegations of outraging modesty and caste-name abuse were against other accused persons. Examining the F.I.R., the court found the accused surrounded the informant's house, abused her, pulled out her saree and threatened her by indicating her caste name; specific allegations of outraging modesty and of offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stood against the appellants, corroborated in case diary paragraph nos.25 and 27, and paragraph no.83 of the case diary showed three other cases against appellant no.1. Holding there was no illegality in the impugned order, the court dismissed the appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

----

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 166 of 2024

----

1.Pintu Bose, aged about 39 years son of Nimai Bose

2.Md.Kurban @ Md. Kurban Khan, aged about 42 years, son of Majid Khan

Both are residents of Village Raghunathpur, PO Kanko Math, PS Katras, District Dhanbad, State Jharkhand .... Appellants

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Sabi Devi wife of late Kali Manjhi, resident of Village Raghunathpur, PO Pradhankhanta PS Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad.... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. A.K.Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 :- Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate

---- /21.11.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

5

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.635 of 2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in connection with Katras P.S.Case No.35 of 2024.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that allegations are against other accused persons and not against the appellants with regard to outraging the modesty and taken of caste name and in view of that, the learned court has erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellants.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the case diary has been received by him and wherein at paragraph nos.25 and

1

27, the name of these appellants have come and they have also outraged the modesty of the informant.

The learned counsel for the informant has also adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent State.

Looking into the contents of the F.I.R, it transpires that the accused persons have surrounded nearby her house and abused her and they have pulled out her saree and the accused have threatened by indicating her caste name and the same allegation have also come in the investigation which is recorded in paragraph no.25 and 27 of the case diary which is produced during argument by the learned counsel for the respondent State. Thus, there is specific allegation of outraging the modesty and there is allegation of committing offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the appellants. In paragraph no.83 of the case diary there are three other cases against the appellant no.1. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

As such, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.166 of 2024 is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/-

2