Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Raj S/o Jitan Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 607 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Atma Ram Choudhary
For the Respondents: Fahad Allam, Sharda Kumari
Anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations lack direct attribution to the accused, supporting the principle of fairness in justice.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 325, 307, 385, 448 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Anticipatory bail - Appellant's request for anticipatory bail was rejected in connection to allegations of assault involving the use of casteist language - The appellant argued that allegations are false and fabricated, and no direct accusation was made against him - Court finds merits in the appellant's arguments and grants anticipatory bail. (Paras 2-9)
(B) Bail - Criteria for anticipatory bail - The court assesses the nature of allegations and finds them non-specific against the appellant, allowing bail based on fairness and justice. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought anticipatory bail after being accused of assaulting the informant's son and using abusive language regarding caste, with the defense claiming the allegations stem from a prior unrelated case involving the informant's son.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the case against the appellant lacked direct accusations and thus granted bail for fairness.
Issues: The validity of allegations against the appellant and whether they warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found merit in the argument that the allegations did not specifically implicate the appellant and thus ruled in favor of bail, ensuring justice is served.
Result: Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial proceedings and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of false allegations and prior case context. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. opposition arguments regarding the offences. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's decision to grant bail. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. setting aside previous bail order. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. final disposal of the appeal. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1336/2024, by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Barkagaon SC/ST P.S. Case No.45 of 2023 registered under Sections 147 /148/149/341/342/323/325/307/385/448 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the gist of the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. that this appellant along with the co-accused persons had assaulted the son of the informant and also the informant indiscriminately by using abusing languages of the caste and insulting them by alleging against the son of the informant- Roshan Kumar who is said to having friendship with the sister of the appellant.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the entire allegations are false and fabricated and allegations are counter product of the earlier case which was instituted by the sister of the appellant against the son of the informant for the offence inter alia punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and 4 of the POCSO Act vide Barkagaon P.S. Case No.37 of 2023 dated 23.01.2023 which is earlier instituted case of the present F.I.R. which has been instituted on01.02.2023.
5. It is further alleged that there is no direct and specific allegation has been attributed against the appellant although the co-accused persons against whom the specific allegations were attributed have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 889 of 2023 (Annexure-3).
6. Further, it has also been submitted that there is no slightest allegation of any kind of assault or using abusive languages by taking the name of the caste against the appellant and the entire allegations are against the co-accused persons and therefore, this appellant deserves to get anticipatory bail as no offence under SC/ST Act is made out and relied upon the ruling of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. , (2020) 10 SCC 710 .
7. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that the appellant is involved in the heinous offence under Section 307 along with 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and therefore, he does not deserves to get anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that date of both the incidents are same and the informant was undergoing treatment and therefore the case has been instituted after the lapse of one month from earlier instituted case by the sister of the appellant under Section376 of the I.P.C. and 4 of the POCSO Act.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case.
9. In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellant on bail in anticipation of his arrest/surrender.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1336/2024 in connection with Barkagaon SC/ST P.S.Case No.45 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest/surrender within three weeks on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,0
