The Jharkhand High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail on the grounds that prima facie materials were found against the accused for the offence under sections 498A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 3(x) and 3(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the respondent's in-laws, who are the accused appellants, faced accusations of both physical and mental abuse towards her, including making caste-based derogatory comments. They were charged under sections 498A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, along with sections 3(x) and 3(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned sessions judge recognized the seriousness of these offences and decided against granting anticipatory bail. The current appeal is being filed against this decision of the lower court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the marriage under Muslim rites precludes any offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(x) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned counsel argues that the complainant's prior case (Case No. 328 of 2013) under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code renders the current case malicious, as indicated in paragraph 18 of her complaint. Furthermore, paragraph 15, detailing the complainant's confinement and threats, is viewed by the learned counsel as a property dispute rather than a criminal matter. Additionally, the learned counsel argues that section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, concerning religious offences, is irrelevant to this case, which lacks specific allegations against the accused.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for respondent countered the delay argument, saying that the offence has been ongoing since the marriage, hence no delay or malicious intent in the FIR filing exists. The counsel contended that the initial complaint under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, based on cruelty and abuse allegations, led to the current complaint, asserting continuity of offences. He also highlighted from the complaint, affirmations, and witness statements that the humiliation and eviction based on caste, as described in sections 3(x) and 3(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are clearly substantiated.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, after reviewing the case records, the attached complaint case, the order of cognizance, the challenged order, and the solemn affirmations and statements of the inquiry witnesses, determined that there is sufficient initial evidence against the accused-appellants under sections 498A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 3(x) and 3(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Further the court referred to the solemn affirmation of the respondent and statements of various inquiry witnesses who had supported the case of prosecution and concluded that are no justifiable reasons to approve anticipatory bail.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Md. Aadil Ansari and others vs The State of Jharkhand and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 452 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Paramveer Singh Bajaj, Mr. Vikas Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
