In this criminal appeal against the refusal of bail under the SC/ST Act, the Patna High Court held the appeal was not maintainable because the lower court had already taken cognizance of the offence, relying on a Supreme Court precedent.
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
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.3264 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2019 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
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 08.04.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Bettiah, West Champaranin connection with Bagha Pathkhauli P.S. Case No. 382 of 2019, registered under Sections 302/ 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3264 of 2021(2) dt.17-05-2022 2/2
It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that after investigation, police has filed final form against the appellants but the learned court below differed the final form and has taken cognizance against him. He submits that no witness has supported the prosecution case. He submits that occurrence is not taken place in the public place, hence, SC/ST Act is not attracted against him. He further submits that appellants have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this appeal.
Learned Spl.P.P. for the State submits that if cognizance has been taken against the appellants, hence, this appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
devendra/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the special leave petition for bail is maintainable where the court below has taken cognizance of the offence.
Whether the appellants are guilty of offences under IPC and the SC/ST Act attracting Section 302/34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶18
Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471.
Kailash Kedia @ Kailash Kumar Kedia
Raju Kedia @ Raj Kumar Kedia
Bhola Munshi @ Kayamuddin Ansari @ Bhola 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
