Allowed

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Sept 2024CR. APP (SJ)/2575/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed an appeal against the refusal of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. The Single Judge quashed the lower court order and granted bail, primarily citing an 18-day unexplained delay in filing the FIR, which raised doubts about the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

The earlier order refusing anticipatory bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, to appear before the lower court within six weeks.

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu Vs The State of Bihar — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2575 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2020 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

AMIT KUMAR @ AMIT SAHU Son of Uday Sah @ Uday Sahu Resident of village - Barhi, Ward No.- 09, P.S.- Jaynagar, Dist.- Madhubani

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Leela Devi Dhandev Paswan R/V-Barhi, P.S.-Jay Nagar, Dist-Madhubani.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar Sah For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan For the Informant : Mr. Vibhakar Kumar ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 06-09-2024

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶15

This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.06.2021 in A.B.P. No. 420 of 2021 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 353 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354B, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST Act.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2575 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2024 2/4

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy aged about 19 years and the informant alleges that on 11.09.2020 at 08:00 AM she had gone to her garden, when the accused persons including the appellant came and started abusing her, thereafter, appellant started assaulting and on alarm when her husband and children came to save her, they were also assaulted and the family suffered injury, it is next alleged that Parmeshwar and Uday disrobed her and abused her husband by taking caste name and the accused persons also snatched Rs. 7,000/- and Munika Devi took nose ring of the informant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that prima facie no offence is made out under the SC/ST act even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting, as the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in a garden and not in a public view nor the FIR even remotely suggests that the occurrence was witnessed by any independent witnesses. It is further submitted that it is alleged that the appellant assaulted her, but then it is submitted that the date of occurrence is 11.09.2020 and the FIR came to be

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2575 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2024 3/4

¶20

instituted on 29.09.2020 i.e. after a delay of 18 days without any plausible explanation, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

¶21

Learned Special P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 oppose the appeal, but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there is a delay of 18 days in instituting the instant FIR.

¶22

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the order dated 19.06.2021 in A.B.P. No. 420 of 2021 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 353 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354B, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(i)(X) of the SC/ST Act, is hereby set aside and the appellant above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 353 of 2020

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2575 of 2022(5) dt.06-09-2024 4/4

¶24

subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of

¶25

the Cr.P.C.

¶26

Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.

¶27

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶28

Rishabh/-

¶29

U T

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar @ Amit Sahu 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

Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Pandey @ Munna Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pintu Kumar Singh @ Rangila @ Pintu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shyambabu Sahani Vs The State of Bihar