Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Singh @ Pintu Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.87 of 2019
Ajit Singh @ Pintu Singh ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
--------
10/19.02.2021 The present criminal appeal is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
I.A No.4872 of 2020
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
the informant-Jayanti Kumari for cancellation of bail granted to the
appellant-Ajit Singh @ Pintu Singh by this Court while suspending the
sentence vide order dated 17th May, 2019.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 9th January, 2019 and order of sentence dated 11th
January, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in
Session Trial No.192 of 2013, whereby the appellant was found guilty
and accordingly convicted for the offence under Section 376(1) of the
Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years along
with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence and in default of payment of
fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The appellant preferred the present appeal along with an
interlocutory application being I.A No.921 of 2019 which was heard on
17th May, 2019 and this Court suspended the sentence awarded to him
during the pendency of the appeal and ordered to release him on bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits
that the appellant, after release from the jail, has put some anti-social
elements behind the informant who are using filthy language and use to
tease her due to which she has left her house under fear. It is further
submitted that she filed an application dated 16th January, 2020 before
the Superintendent of Police, Latehar to save her life. She has also filed
an application on 11th February, 2020 before the Chief Minister of
Jharkhand and before the Chairperson, State Women Commission,
Jharkhand on 10th February, 2020 seeking protection but till date no
action has been taken against the appellant. It is also submitted that the
appellant has always been putting pressure upon the informant for
withdrawing the criminal case otherwise she would face dire
consequences.
Having heard the learned counsel for the informant and looking to
the allegations levelled in the present interlocutory application, I do not
find any strong evidence to cancel the bail of the appellant. The
informant has alleged that at the instance of the appellant, some anti-
social elements are teasing and threatening her as well as she is being
pressurized to withdraw the criminal case. It has also been alleged that
the appellant has also giving threat to the prosecution witnesses.
The learned counsel for the appellant has puts reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kanaka
Rekha Naik Vs. Manoj Kumar Pradhan & Another reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 596. I have gone through the said judgment wherein the
wife of the deceased had filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
challenging the order of the High Court whereby bail was granted to the
appellant after suspending the sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Their Lordships while rejecting the contention of the senior counsel for
the respondent challenging the maintainability of appeal have held that
the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure can always pass order and can even hear an
intervener while considering the application seeking suspension of the
sentence pending the appeal. It is for the High Court to decide under
which circumstances a person can be permitted to intervene while
hearing the application seeking suspension of sentence filed by the
convicted person. It is a matter of exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Court. Nevertheless it cannot be said that the High Court has no
jurisdiction to permit any intervener opposing the suspension of sentence
and grant of bail by it in exercise of its power under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
Their Lordships while setting aside the order of suspension and grant of
bail by the High Court, remitted the matter back to the High Court for
deciding it afresh and have observed that the High Court ought to have
taken into consideration the serious nature of allegations, the findings
recorded by the trial court and the alleged involvement of the respondent
in more than one case, for deciding as to whether it was a fit case for
suspending the sentence awarded by the trial court and his release on
bail during the pendency of the appeal. It has also been observed that
the impugned order does not record any reason whatsoever except
vague observation that nature of allegations have been taken into
consideration. The order clearly reflects that the High Court was mainly
impressed with the fact that the respondent was a sitting MLA.
However, in the present case, the facts and circumstances are
entirely different. Here, the order of suspension and grant of bail to the
petitioner has not been challenged by the informant on the ground of
any infirmity/omission in the said order. Rather, the issue in the present
case is (i) as to whether the informant's application for cancellation of
bail granted to the appellant for suspending the sentence is maintainable
or (ii) the allegations so levelled by the informant for cancellation of bail,
constitutes separate cause of action.
I am of the view that all these allegations give rise to separate
cause of action for which informant may report to the police for lodging
of first informant report and for taking appropriate action against the
appellant and other persons. The trial has already been concluded and as
such there is no chance of tampering with the evidences by the present
appellant. Though as per the informant, she has filed applications before
the Superintendent of Police, Latehar, Chief Minister of Jharkhand and
the Chairperson, State Women Commission, Jharkhand, however no such
finding of any competent authority on the allegations levelled by the
informant is available on record. So far inaction on the part of the
Superintendent of Police, Latehar to take steps on the informant's
application is concerned, she has the remedy to move before the
competent court by filing a criminal complaint. On mere allegation of the
informant, the bail of the appellant cannot be cancelled that too in
absence of any factual finding with regard to the allegations levelled by
the informant by the competent authority. Since the informant has not
been able to show any sufficient ground before this Court for
cancellation of bail of the appellant granted vide order dated 17th May,
2019, I do not find any reason to entertain the present interlocutory
application.
I.A No. 4872 of 2020 is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Rohit
