Appeal against refusal of bail in an SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) case. High Court allowed bail considering the victim's statement did not allege sexual assault and parties are neighbours.
Impugned order dated 18.06.2020 set aside; appellant released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount.
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.1824 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2018 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
RAVINDRA KUMAR @ RABINDRA KUMAR Son of Meghu Sah Resident of Village- Bhuwalidih, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari, APP For the informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
2 04-08-2021
Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant, Ms. Usha Kumari, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by order dated 18.06.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No.105 of 2018, registered under Sections 363, 366A, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1824 of 2021(2) dt.04-08-2021 2/3
The appellant has renewed his prayer for bail inasmuch as earlier the bail application of the appellant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal SJ No.1694 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the parties are neighbours and the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case due to village rivalry. Learned counsel next submits that from perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it would be evident that the girl was not recovered by the police and she had returned back on her own accord. Learned counsel further submits that no allegation of sexual assault has been made against the appellant by the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the appellant is in custody since 28.02.2020. Learned counsel further submits that the chargesheet has already been submitted in the matter and there is no likelihood that the appellant will abscond or tamper with the evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is allegation of abducting a minor girl upon the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1824 of 2021(2) dt.04-08-2021 3/3
appellant and he does not deserve the privilege of bail.
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties
and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that the victim girl has not stated anything against the appellant that he sexually assaulted the victim girl at any point of time and she returned to her home on her own accord after 6-7 months and both the parties are neighbours and appellant is in custody since 28.02.2020 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case, I am inclined to regular bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.06.2020 is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
Let the appellant, above-named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No.105 of 2018.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant, imprisoned under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is entitled to bail given the victim's statement and circumstances.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the bail application should be set aside.
RAVINDRA KUMAR @ RABINDRA KUMAR
The State of Bihar
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
