MD Sattar Alias MD Santar Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23402 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 336 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Md. Sattar @ Md. Santar ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.XXX ….. Respondents ----------

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶6

¶7

For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : None

¶8

¶9

04/06.08.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14(A) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the order dated 19.12.2024, passed in M.C.A. No. 1079 of 2024, by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda by which prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Md. Sattar @ Md. Santar has been rejected in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 195 of 2024, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 11 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Section 64/62 of B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the Court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda.

¶10

2. As per F.I.R., while the victim girl was cutting grass, then the appellant is alleged to have arrived near her and finding her alone, he tried to commit rape upon her and when she raised alarm, the accused-appellant tried to flee away by snatching her mobile and then she hid herself into the bushes. On

¶11

1

¶12

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23402 )

¶13

hearing alarm, few people came there and rescued her and caught hold of the appellant and handed him over to the police.

¶14

3. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

4. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the bail of the appellant is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the occurrence took place on 27.10.2024 and the F.I.R. was lodged 29.10.2024, i.e. after a delay of two days. It is submitted that as per the F.I.R., the appellant was caught by the villagers on the same day, i.e. 27.10.2024 and hence handing him over to the police on 29.10.2024 is improbable. It is submitted that the Informant was cutting grass near the edge of the field of the appellant which was protested by the appellant and thereafter altercation took place and hence, the appellant has been falsely implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the victim girl was not medically examined by the police. It is submitted that the victim girl has not supported the allegation of attempting to commit rape upon her against the appellant during her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 30.10.2024 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is

¶17

2

¶18

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23402 )

¶19

direct allegation against the appellant for attempting to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, but she was saved by the villagers. It is submitted that the prosecutrix and her father, namely Japan Tudu have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the mother of the prosecutrix, namely Makku Hansda had also supported the case of the prosecutrix and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶20

6. Perused the F.I.R. and the Case Diary and considered the submission of both sides.

¶21

7. It appears that the State has filed counter affidavit and the copy of the appeal has been served upon the Respondent No.2, guardian of the victim girl ‘X’, on 24.06.2025 and the case was fixed on 30.06.2025. however, when the case is called out, none appears on behalf of Respondent No.2 today, i.e. on 06.08.2025.

¶22

8. It appears that the appellant is alleged to have attempted to commit rape upon the victim girl on finding her alone, however, she saved herself and the appellant was handed over to the police on 27.10.2024, however, the F.I.R. was lodged on 29.10.2024 and there is no explanation for the said delay.

¶23

9. It appears that there are two sets of witnesses. One set of witnesses includes the statements of the Informant and her father, namely Japan Tudu, her mother, namely Makku Hansda recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S on 29.10.2024, 29.10.2024 and 02.11.2024 respectively, who have stated during their

¶24

3

¶25

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23402 )

¶26

statements that the appellant has attempted to commit rape upon the victim girl.

¶27

10. It appears that the other set of witnesses namely Mansur Alam and Ikram were examined under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. by the police on 18.11.2024 and they had merely stated that there was argument between the appellant and the Informant on the question of cutting of grass.

¶28

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant, namely Md. Sattar @ Md. Santar is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 195 of 2024, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 11 of 2024 to the satisfaction of the Court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge, Godda or his Successor Court subject to condition that he will file an affidavit before the learned Court below that he will not indulge in such offence in future again, failing which the prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail and also subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the own relative of the appellant having landed properties in his/or her specific name and also subject to the condition that he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he will submit his Aadhar card and mobile number before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it

¶29

4

¶30

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23402 )

¶31

during pendency of the trial without prior permission of the learned Court below.

¶32

12. Accordingly, the Order dated 19.12.2024, passed in M.C.A. No. 1079 of 2024, by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda is set aside.

¶33

13. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 336 of 2025 is allowed.

¶34

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below and also to the Superintendent of Police, Godda for the needful.

¶35

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶36

s.m.

¶37

5

MD Sattar Alias MD Santar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Sattar Alias MD Santar 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

Etwari Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nisar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The S P Cbi Acb Ranchi And Ors.

Mustafa Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Subodh Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand