Allowed

Ranjit Pandey @ Menu Pandey v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Dec 2022CR. APP (SJ)/1926/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act against the refusal of anticipatory bail. The court observed that the appellants were falsely implicated and noted a compromise between parties, affirming their release on bail upon furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing anticipatory bail set aside; appellants directed to be released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties.

Ranjit Pandey @ Menu Pandey Vs the State of Bihar — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1926 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas

¶3

======================================================

¶4

RANJIT PANDEY @ MENU PANDEY S/O DAYA PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-DELUHA, P.S-KARAGHAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.

¶5

GUDDU PANDEY @ TEJ NARAYAN PANDEY S/O DAYA PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-DELUHA, P.S-KARAGHAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.

¶6

SATENDRA PANDEY S/O LATE KESHO PANDEY R/O VILLAGEDELUHA, P.S-KARAGHAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.

¶7

UDAY PANDEY @ UDAY NARAYAN PANDEY S/O LATE BHIKHARI PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-DELUHA, P.S-KARAGHAR, DISTRICTROHTAS.

¶8

SURYABANSH PANDEY S/O LATE BHIKHARI PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-DELUHA, P.S-KARAGHAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.

¶9

... ... Appellant/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR

¶12

Bhikhari Ram Dasrath Ram resident of vill- Bhaluari, P.S.- Kaghar, DistrictRohtas

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dineshwar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER

¶15

4 21-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

This is an appeal under section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions

¶17

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1926 of 2021(4) dt.21-12-2022 2/3

¶18

Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with SC/ST Dehri P.S. Case no.101 of 2020, registered under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 385, 504, 506 of the IPC and sections 3(I)(r)(s) of the SC and ST Act.

¶19

The allegation against the appellants is that they assaulted and abused the informant by taking caste name. It is further alleged that the accused persons took the money which he earned by selling fishes i.e. Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the informant and also carried electronic motor of 2 V.H.P.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and has not committed any offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever taken place. Appellants have been falsely implicated in the case with frivolous allegation. He further submits that the present FIR is a counter-blast and lodged after two days from the occurrence. There is no specific allegation of assault or abuse by taking caste name against the appellants. He further submits that there is a compromise between the parties. Appellants have no criminal antecedent, as also mentioned in para-3 of the memo of appeal.

¶21

Learned Spl. PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1926 of 2021(4) dt.21-12-2022 3/3

¶24

appellants named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with SC/ST Dehri P.S. Case no.101 of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

¶26

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶27

shikha/-

¶28

U T

Ranjit Pandey @ Menu Pandey v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Pandey @ Menu Pandey v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar @ Vikesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Imran Zaki @ Banty Vs the State of Bihar

Arvind Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Punyadeo Singh Vs the State of Bihar