Sultan Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:17324

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.161 of 2025

¶3

….

¶4

Sultan Khan aged about 54 Years S/O Tali Khan @ Dibar Khan, Resident of Village-Tigra P.P. & P.S.- Jari District-Gumla (Jharkhand)

¶5

Sakir Khan @ Sakir Miyan aged abour 33 years S/O Gadori Miyan Resident of Village-Tigra P.O. & P.S.-Jari District – Gumla (Jharkhand) ……Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Rajendra Bahgat S/O Pithu Bhagat Resident of Village-Bara Tigra P.O. & P.S.-Jari District-Gumla (Jharkhand)

¶9

……Respondents

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶12

----- For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ayub Ansari, Advocate

¶13

Order No.04/19.06.2025

¶14

I.A. No.2184 of 2025

¶15

I.A. No.2184 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing this instant Criminal Appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that due to financial crunch, the appellants could not file this Criminal Appeal within time and hence the delay of 55 days in filing this Criminal Appeal may be condoned.

¶17

Learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has raised objection.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and in view of the averments made in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the I.A. No.2184 of 2025 the delay of 55 days in filing the instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby condoned.

¶19

¶20

2025:JHHC:17324

¶21

Thus, I.A. No. 2184 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶22

Cr.A(SJ) No.161 of 2025

¶23

This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.161 of 2025 has been filed by the appellants under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 by challenging the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in ABP No.327 of 2024 in connection with Jari P.S. Case No.01/2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 147,148,149,323,307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellants has been rejected.

¶24

The prosecution case in brief is that while the Informant had gone for a fishing along with one Mukesh Oraon towards the river on 12.01.2023 in the afternoon then in the meantime he received an information that the three persons are fleeing away along with 5 cattles and, therefore, he went to the place of occurrence and found that the 3 person were proceeding along with 5 cattle towards the via Lava river to the village Chota Tigra. However, subsequently accused persons have managed to flee away by leaving the five oxen at the place of occurrence. However, when the Informant arrived at the place of occurrence then 8 to 9 persons including the appellant had shouted by taking name of the caste and started to chase him and the informant was humiliated in the public view.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶26

¶27

2025:JHHC:17324

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants have get compromise the case and have filed the Joint Compromise Petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla on 14.08.2024 and hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 10. However, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 has submitted that the case has been compromised between the appellants with the Respondent No.2 and the Joint Compromise Petition has been filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla on 14.08.2024, in which both the parites have put their signature along with the witnesses.

¶30

Perused the Case Diary and Lower Court Records of this case and the Joint Compromise Petition. 12. It appears from the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2 that the they had gone compromised the dispute and filed Joint Compromise Petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla and stated at para 2 to 4 as follows:-

¶31

“Para-2:- That it is stated that both the appellants and the respondent are of same village and due to confusion, present case has been registered however, both the parties have subsequently compromised the case and have filed the compromised the case and have filed the Compromise petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla on 14.08.2024 in which both the parties have put their signature along with the witnesses.

¶32

Para-3:- That it is stated that during the pendency of Anticipatory Bail Application before court below deponent

¶33

¶34

2025:JHHC:17324

¶35

has compromised the case and hence now he does not want to proceed further with the case

¶36

Para-4:- That deponent has no objection in case of grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants as case has been compromised outside the case and same was reduced to writing.”

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six (06) weeks from today, in the event of arrest or surrender, the appellants namely Sultan Khan and Sakir Khan @ Sakir Miyan are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla or his successor court in ABP No.327 of 2024 in connection with Jari P.S. Case No.01/2023 subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be own relative of the appellants.

¶38

However, it will be desirable that both the sides should maintain the peace.

¶39

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in ABP No.327 of 2024 in connection with Jari P.S. Case No.01/2023 is set aside.

¶40

Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 161 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶41

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶42

Nishant/-

¶43

Sultan Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar Alias Pintu Vs State of Jharkhand

Shyam Kishore Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Oraon (Juvenile) Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balram Sharma Alias Baliram Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishwanath Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Singh Yadav Alias Birendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand