Jharkhand High Court
Sumitra Kumari @ Sumitra Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 684 of 2022
....
1. Sumitra Kumari @ Sumitra Devi
2. Phool Kumari @ Phul Kumari
3. Gudia Kumari @ Seema Kumari
4. Tribhuwan Mahto
5. Mahavir Mahto @ Mahavir Prasad Mahto
6. Monika Devi @ Monika Kumari
7. Girdhari Yadav @ Girdhari Gop
8. Bhagan Mahto @ Harakh Lal Mahto
9. Moti Mahto
10. Manju Devi @ Ritika Raj
11. Basant Mahto @ Basant Kumar Mahto
12. Arun Mahto @ Arun Kumar
13. Pankaj Mahto @ Pankaj Kumar Mahto .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arjun Ravidas .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, APP
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Adv.
....
02/28.09.2022 Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the victim has been
informed and in pursuance of that information, learned counsel for the victim has
entered his appearance by filing vakalatnama.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as
learned counsel for the victim.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.08.2021
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge SC/ST Act, Giridih in
A.B.P. No.530 of 2021 in connection with SC/ST Case No.16 of 2021 arising out
of Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.11 of 2021, registered for the offence under Sections
147/ 148/ 149/ 341/ 323/ 324/ 325/ 307/ 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3 (c) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.
The appellants have approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail
although the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ ST (PoA) Act.
From perusal of documents, it appears that the F.I.R. has been lodged
against these appellants alongwith others under the SC/ST Act and different
Sections of Indian Penal Code in split up trial, being SC/ST Case No.16 of 2021,
the persons who have been tried are Jagarnath Mahto and Manoj Mahto and they
have been acquitted from the charge under the SC/ST Act.
Para-24 of the said judgment reads as under:
"24. जहाँ तक अिभयु गण के िव SC/ST Act क धारा 3(1) (r),
3(1) (s) के आरोप का है तो इस स बंध म म पाता हॅू क अिभयोजन ारा सूचक या
अ य कसी पीिड़त उपहित साि य का जाित के स बंध म कस तरह का द तावेजी सा य
अिभलेख पर उपल ध नह कराया गया है और न ही सािबत कराया गया है जब क पीिड़त
का जाित क को ट या उपको ट को सािबत करने के िलए जाित माण-प आव यक है।
इसी संदभ म गे द दास बनाम म य देश रा य (अब छ ीसगढ), 2015 (2) CGLJ 478,
तथा म
े लाल गु ा बनाम म य देश रा य AIC 2015 Vol 156 Page No. 359 म पा रत
िनणय भी दृ है। अतः उ त य एवं प रि थितय और िविधक िनयमावली के आलोक
म अिभयु के िव SC/ST Act क धारा 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) का आरोप संदह
े ा पद हो
जाता है।"
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that although
the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 180 days but since it is a bail
application as such if the case is made out, the appellant cannot be denied the
benefit of bail. It has been further submitted that since the offence under the SC/ST
Act is not made out as the finding has been recorded by the court below in the split
up trial that no evidence has been brought on record suggesting that the victim is
the member of SC community. In such scenario, denying the benefit of anticipatory
bail to the female will cause great injustice. On above basis, prayer for anticipatory
bail has been made.
Learned APP and learned counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer
for bail of the appellants and submitted that as per the F.I.R., there is serious
allegation against these appellants.
Since finding has been recorded by the court below in split up trial that
there is no evidence on record suggesting that the victim is the member of SC
community and as such bar of section 18 of SC/ST Act is not applicable.
Considering peculiar nature of this case and the fact that the F.I.R. is
dated 07.02.2021 and some of the appellants are female, the appellants are directed
to surrender in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/
production of the copy of this order, and in the event of their arrest or surrender,
they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on their furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge SC/ST Act, Giridih
in connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.11 of 2021, on the conditions as laid
down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
