Jharkhand High Court
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Chand @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.367 of 2020
---
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Chand @ Angad
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manoj Kumar Paswan ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
05/11.06.2021: The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and
Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
3. The criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment/order dated 28.05.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.80 of 2020, by Sri
Dhananjay Kumar, the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Seraikella passed in connection with Seraikella S.C./ S.T. P.S. Case No.02 of
2019, registered for the offence Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
whereby and whereunder the anticipatory bail of the appellant has been
rejected and now pending in the court of the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the criminal law has been put into motion by lodging of the FIR dated
16.12.2019. It appears from the FIR that the appellant had abused the victim
by taking his caste name and had threatened him to implicate in the case using
false allegation by help of some women. It has further been argued by the
learned counsel that for attracting the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, firstly, it is essential that the caste certificate has to be attached by
the complainant and secondly, the offence must be in public view, and as
such, it is a case of false accusation, as there is already a litigation
between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
informant has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having heard the parties and perusal of the records, it appears
that the argument of the appellant that it was not in public view, is not
correct as it was not only at a public place, the appellant was present
with other friends, and as such, the argument of public view is not
tenable. So far as, another argument of the appellant that at the time of
lodging of the FIR, caste certificate must be attached, is not tenable as
because there is no such provision nor there is such requirement
regarding filing of the caste certificate at the time of the lodging of the
FIR.
7. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with
the order of the court below, whereby the anticipatory bail of the
appellant has been rejected.
8. Since, there is no provision of anticipatory bail, and as such,
court below has rightly rejected the bail for the appellant. Accordingly, I
do not find any merit in the present appeal, hence the Criminal Appeal
(S.J.) No.367 of 2020 is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
