Allowed¶15

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Mar 2025Cr.A(SJ)/566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted; Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.566 of 2024; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Navneet Kumar, J.; 06.03.2025; Birendra Sinha @ Birendra Prasad; Bandhni Devi; SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024; ABP No.834 of 2024; Complaint Case No.3 of 2024; Sections 354(B)/323 IPC; Sections 3/4 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; Special Judge SC/ST Giridih; delay in filing complaint; offence not in public view; Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710; bail bond Rs.25,000/- with two sureties; order set aside; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant; the order dated 8.7.2024 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside; bail conditioned on cooperation in investigation. ¶15

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, arrayed in SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 under Sections 354(B)/323 IPC and Sections 3/4 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih having rejected his prayer. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Trial Court Record including the case diary, and in view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the Court found it a fit case to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The appellant is directed to be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest or surrender within 15 days of receipt of the order, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih, subject to cooperation in the investigation, failing which the Trial Court may pass a suitable order for cancellation of bail.

¶13

Key takeaways

The order dated 8.7.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in ABP No.834 of 2024, in connection with SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, is set aside.ratio¶14
The appeal is allowed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.566 of 2024 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Navneet Kumar, J., 06.03.2025): Anticipatory bail granted to Birendra Sinha @ Birendra Prasad, accused in SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 registered under Sections 354(B)/323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act arising from Complaint Case No.3 of 2024. The order dated 8.7.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in ABP No.834 of 2024 rejecting the anticipatory bail prayer is set aside. Bail directed within 15 days on furnishing bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to cooperation in investigation, failing which cancellation may be ordered. Counsel's submissions on delay in lodging the complaint (occurrence 01.11.2023; complaint 11.01.2024) and reliance on Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 were recorded; the appeal is allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.566 of 2024

¶2

Birendra Sinha @ Birendra Prasad, aged about – 39 years, S/o – Ramchander Prasad, resident of Kolhua, near Hanuman Mandir, Chalmo Barahmasiya, P.O.Chalmo, P.S.- Dumri, District- Giridih, Jharkhand ..... Appellant Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

Bandhni Devi, aged about – 40 years, w/o Bhola Das, resident of Kolhua, P.O. – Chalmo, P.S. – Dumri, District- Giridih, Jharkhand …. Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶6

For the Appellant	:	Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
		Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, APP
For Respondent No.2	:	Ms. Supriya Dayal,Amicus Curiae

¶7

-----

¶8

6/06.03.2025 Heard Ms. Arpita Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by Ms. Supriya Dayal, who is Amicus Curiae and appointed on behalf of the Respondent No.2. to assist this Court, since no one has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 even after proper service of notice.

¶9

This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in ABP No.834 of 2024, whereby and wherein the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, in connection with SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, registered under Sections 354(B)/323 of IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, corresponding to complaint case No.03 of 2024, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that on 11.01.2024, a Complaint Case No. 3 of 2024 was filed by the complainant / Respondent No.2 before the Special Court, SC/ST Giridih, which was referred to SC/ST police station and then the formal FIR was drawn on 14.04.2024 as SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, under Sections 354(B)/323 of IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶11

At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the entire allegations are false and fabricated in view of the fact that the victim complainant Respondent No.2 is a 40 years old woman and it is admitted case that the occurrence took place on 01.11.2023 and the complaint has been instituted on 11.01.2024 after a lapse of more than two months and no cogent explanation has been set out in the complaint petition, although in para-4 of the complaint petition,

¶12

1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.566 of 2024

¶13

it has been mentioned that the complainant-victim (respondent No.2) had approached to the concerned police station on 28.11.2023 and that thereafter on 11.12.2023 before the SP, Giridih, even then after a lapse of one month, the case was instituted and thus the veracity and truthfulness of the allegations as made out in the complaint petition becomes doubtful.

¶14

Further it has also been pointed out that the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant entered into the house of the complainant and outraged the modesty by taking the name of caste and as such it is submitted that the alleged offence has not been taken place in the public view and no one was present there.

¶15

Further in support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

¶16

It has further been submitted that the appellant at the time of occurrence, upon the alarm raised by the victim, was caught by the villagers, who had come after hearing the noise of hulla (alarm) raised by the victim, but even after apprehending the appellant on the spot red-handed, neither any information was given to the police nor any legal action has been taken and it also creates doubt in the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR.

¶17

Further, it has also been pointed out that during the course of investigation, a number of witnesses have been examined, who are the villagers and neighbours, including the husband and they have supported the case of the prosecution, but on the date of occurrence, when the neighbors and the relatives have caught hold the appellant, they did not take any legal action and therefore subsequent statement during the course of investigation also did not inspire any confidence in order to constitute the offence against the appellant and therefore it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no case under Section 3/4 of SC/ST Act is made out and the entire allegations are false and fabricated and therefore he may be enlarged on bail in anticipation of his arrest or surrender.

¶18

On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned Amicus Miss Supriya Dayal opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the victim had categorically stated that the appellant entered into the house of the victim-complainant and insulted her by taking the name of her caste.

¶19

It has further been submitted that her version has been supported further during the course of the investigation by the husband, neighbours and villagers in para 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of case diary, but did not controvert that a complaint was

¶20

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.566 of 2024

¶21

instituted after a lapse of more than two months on 11.01.2024 and further also did not controvert the fact that when the written application made on 11.12.2023 before SP, Giridih, even then the complaint was not instituted and after a lapse of one month from making application before S.P. Giridih on 11.01.2024, the complaint has been instituted.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the Trial Court Record including the case diary.

¶23

In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found that it is a fit case to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 13. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest or surrender within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in connection with SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the investigation of the case, failing which appropriate step shall be taken by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, who will pass a suitable order for the cancellation of bail of the appellant.

¶24

In the result, the order dated 8.7.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in ABP No.834 of 2024, in connection with SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 is set-aside.

¶25

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

¶26

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶27

R.Kumar

¶28

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.566 of 2024

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Khirod Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Damodar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Mandal @ Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand