Allowed

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Mehta v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Dec 2023CR. APP (SJ)/378/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail, the Patna High Court set aside the order rejecting prayer. The court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, subject to furnishing a bond and sureties within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside; appellants granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bond and sureties within six weeks.

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Mehta Vs The State of Bihar — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.378 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhepura

¶3

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

¶4

MANOJ KUMAR @ MANOJ MEHTA S/O SITARAM MEHTA R/VTOKA SIHPUR, P.S.- GAMHARIA, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA

¶5

PRASHANT KUMAR @ PRASHANT MEHTA @ PRASANT MEHTA S/O VINDESHWARI MEHTA R/V- TOKA SIHPUR, P.S.- GAMHARIA, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar BIHAR

¶9

SHUSHILA DEVI @ SUSHILA DEVI W/O CHANDESHWARI RAM R/V- TOKA SIHPUR, TOLA- LATAMBARI WARD NO 5, P.S.GAMHARIA, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance :

¶12

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amarnath Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

6 15-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

¶17

2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes against the rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Madhepura on ABP No. 1184/2022 in SC/ST Complaint Case No. 96/ 2019 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

¶18

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.378 of 2023(6) dt.15-12-2023 2/3

¶19

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶20

3. As per prosecution case, when the informant was going to field for grazing the goats then her goat went to the field of the coaccused Anmol Mehta and grazed the Paddy plants. Thereafter, the appellants and the co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the informant with fist and abused her by calling her caste name. It is further alleged that the co-accused Anmol Mehta also snatched silver locket from the informant.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the appellants. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellants have no concern with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place in the field and no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the incident and hence, no offence under provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. The appellants have no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition.

¶22

5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants.

¶23

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that no case is made out against the appellants, the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.378 of 2023(6) dt.15-12-2023 3/3

¶25

learned 1^st Additiional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Madhepura on ABP No. 1184/2022 in SC/ST Complaint Case No. 96/ 2019, is set aside against the appellants. The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶26

7. Accordingly, the above named appellants, in the event of their arrest/ surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Madhepura in SC/ST Complaint Case No. 96/ 2019 on ABP No. 1184/ 2022 in connection with SC/ST Complaint Case No. 96/ 2019, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶28

Gautam/-

¶29

U T

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Mehta v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Mehta 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

Sonu Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Nuraisha Khatoon @ Nuraisha @ Nuraish Khatoon Vs the State of Bihar

Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Jitendra Mandal @ Jitendra Prasad Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Aditya Singh @ Aditya Kumar @ Dhan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mannu Mandal @ Mannu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar