Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1038 of 2020
(26.6.2020)
Krishna Choudhary – Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar – Respondent
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(i) (r) (s) 3(2) (v) (a) – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 302 and 448 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – In present case 11 persons have been made accused, charge-sheet has been submitted and most of them have been granted bail, cognizance has also been taken against appellant and others and appellant is in custody since 8.1.2019 – Impugned order set aside and bail granted to appellant. (Para 4)
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum Special Court SC/ST Act, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Registered Case No. 329 of 2018 arising out of Karakat P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 302, 448 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(i) (r) (s) 3(2) (v) a of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant for bail.
3. Perused the report dated 11.6.2020 submitted by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. Considering the report and noticing the fact that in the present case 11 persons have been made accused, charge sheet has been submitted and most of them have been granted bail, cognizance has also been taken against the appellant and others and the appellant is in custody since 8.1.2019, this Court is inclined to set aside the order and accordingly, the order rejecting bail dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum Special Court SC/ST Act, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Registered Case No. 329 of 2018 arising out of Karakat P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 is hereby set aside. Let the appellant above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum Special Court SC/ST Act, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Registered Case No. 329 of 2018 arising out of Karakat P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018.
5. The appeal stands allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
