The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that at the stage of grant of an anticipatory bail, the Court would necessarily have limited material before it, therefore, cannot be of gravity depth and level of what the Court would do while hearing a hotly contested bail application for more importantly the level of consideration that even at a trial.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the mother of the appellant was admitted to the clinic of the Respondent, which is running in the name of “Prasad Clinic”. She was discharged but after some time she was again admitted to the clinic of respondent No.2. Then, she was referred by the doctor for better treatment in Ranchi where she died and the cause of death was the infection of reaction to certain medicines. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 was abused and threatened. The case was registered under Sections 304-A, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The anticipatory bail application was filed and the same was allowed by the learned Additional Session Judge. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that after the death of the mother of the appellant some altercation took place and respondent No.2, who happened to be the doctor, misbehaved with the appellant by taking caste name and in spite of bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities (Act), 1989. It was furthermore submitted that the order by the learned court below may kindly be set aside.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that if the case under the relevant section of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out then Section 18 will not come into play.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the stage of anticipatory bail cannot be of gravity depth and level of what the Court would do while hearing a hotly contested bail application because of limited material before the court. More importantly, the court cannot give the case the same weight and consideration as it would during a trial.
It was furthermore observed that the Court must decide whether the material presented to support the invocation of the charge was justified after conducting a responsible judicial examination. This is because there is a significant risk of the SC/ST (POA) Act being invoked incorrectly, so the Court must exercise caution to make sure the bar is only raised in the rare instances in which an offence under the Act could be clearly defined.
The court noted that the case was not supported by any independent witness.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no illegality in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Vijay Ravidas @ Bijay Ravidas V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 541 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
