Appeal against refusal of bail in an SC/ST atrocity case. Court noted compromise between parties and lack of injury on informant, allowing bail with sureties and setting aside impugned order.
Appellant released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount each.
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.229 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
======================================================
SANTU THATHERA @ SHANU KUMAR S/O SATENDRA PRASAD R/o Mohalla- Dhaniya Bagicha, Ekta Colony, P.S.- Delha, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Priya Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2022
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within stipulated period, office will place the matter before the Bench.
This is an appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 27.10.2021, passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya, in connection with Delha P.S. Case No.160/2020, registered u/s 447, 504, 506, 509, 307, 387/34 of the IPC, section 25(1-b)a, 26, 35, 27 of the Arms Act and sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is quite innocent and has committed no offence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.229 of 2022(2) dt.19-05-2022 2/2
He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. There is an allegation of firing upon the informant but no injury was found on the body of the informant. It is further submitted that there is a compromise between the parties. The appellant has been languishing in custody since 08.09.2021 and has five criminal antecedents.
Learned Spl. PP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but have not denied the fact that the parties have compromised.
In the facts and circumstance of the case, considering the compromise between the parties, the above named appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya, in connection with Delha P.S. Case No.160/2020.
The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
pallavi/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
whether bail should be granted to the appellant considering the compromise between parties and lack of injury on informant
whether the impugned order refusing bail should be set aside
whether the appellant can be released on bail after furnishing sureties
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SANTU THATHERA @ SHANU KUMAR
The State of Bihar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
