The High Court rejected the appeal for anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, noting the appellant already enjoyed police bail. The court directed the appellant to surrender to seek regular bail.
Anticipatory bail application rejected; appellants directed to surrender within six weeks to seek regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.27 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2015 Thana- AMAUR District- Purnia
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vikram Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL
ORAL ORDER
This is an appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.11.2018 passed by learned 1st A.D.J.-cumSpecial Judge, Purnea in connection with Aamaour P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015, registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 (x) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2019(6) dt.03-07-2019 2/3
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Over row of not calling the present Sarpanch Rukmini Devi in the Panchyati by the informant appellant No. 1 and her son Jitendra Vishwas slated the son of the informant in the name of his caste and other co-accused including appellants assaulted the son of the informant by means of legs, fists etc.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to family feud. Informant does not happens to be an eye witness of the occurrence. The allegations levelled against the appellants are not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. No one has sustained injury in the occurrence. Hence, appellants be enlarged on bail.
Learned Spl. P.P. for the State submitted that appellants are enjoying privilege of Police Bail so there is no apprehension of arrest hence anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
In that view of the matter, the present appeal is rejected with a direction to the appellants to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.27 of 2019(6) dt.03-07-2019 3/3
regular bail and the learned lower Court would consider the same without being prejudiced by this order on the very date of surrender.
It goes without saying that the appellants shall be granted the benefit of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 491 and particularly para-5 of the judgment.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)
T.Kr./- U T
2 issues framed by the court
1. Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable given the appellant's enjoyment of police bail.
2. What directions should be given to the appellants regarding their surrender to seek regular bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶29
2004 (3) PLJR 491
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rukmani Devi and others
The State of Bihar
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
