MD Mustafa Alias Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

MD Mustafa Alias Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail upon surrender within two weeks, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who is apprehending arrest in connection with S.T./S.C. Gumla P.S. Case No. 11/2022 (registered under Sections 353/384/385/387/504/506/509 IPC and Sections 3(1)/(r)/(s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, pending before Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla), should be released on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned court below within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned court below shall release the appellant on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in connection with S.T./S.C. Gumla P.S. Case No. 11/2022, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Ambuj Nath, J.), Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 195 of 2023, decided 22.03.2024: Md. Mustafa Rajan, apprehending arrest in S.T./S.C. Gumla P.S. Case No. 11/2022 (IPC Sections 353/384/385/387/504/506/509; Prevention of Atrocities Act Sections 3(1)/(r)/(s)), pending before Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla, was directed to surrender within two weeks and to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to section 438(2) CrPC conditions. Factual backdrop: opposite party no. 2 (Sushma Nilam Soreng) first complained to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla that the appellant, then village Up-Pramukh, got work done and did not pay dues; the original complaint (page 71 of the application, part of the FIR) contained no caste averment and no derogatory remarks, whereas the typed report of the District Panchayati Raj Officer alleged caste-related derogatory words; counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the bail prayer but did not dispute the absence of caste remarks in the first application.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 195 of 2023

Md. Mustafa Rajan

The State of Jharkhand

Sushma Nilam Soreng ... … Respondents

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

For the Appellant : M/s. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : M/s. N. K. Gaunjhu, A.P.P For the Resp-O.P: M/s. Niraj Kumar Mishra, Advocate

18/22.03.2024 Heard the Parties.

Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with S.T./S.C. Gumla P.S. Case No. 11/2022, registered under Sections 353/ 384/ 385/ 387/ 504/ 506/ 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)/ (r)/ (s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla.

It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has initially filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla alleging therein that the appellant who was village Up-Pramukh had got work done by the informant and thereafter he did not pay his dues.

On the basis of this complaint an enquiry was set up and subsequently the present case was instituted. Attention has been drawn towards the original complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, which is at page no. 71 of this application, which is also part of the FIR. Wherein no averment has been made regarding caste and no derogatory remarks have been used by the appellant to address the opposite party no. 2. However, in the typed report filed by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, it has been mentioned that caste related derogatory words were used by the appellant against the victim.

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail but he does not dispute the fact

that in the first application filed by the opposite party no. 2, before the Deputy Commissioner Gumla, no caste related derogatory remarks were used by the appellant against the opposite party no. 2.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case; appellant, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the learned court below shall release him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in connection with S.T./S.C. Gumla P.S. Case No. 11/2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

Saurabh

uploaded