Jharkhand High Court
Sakuntala Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.487 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.487 of 2023
(Against the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Palamau passed in ABP No.351 of 2023 arising out of Tarhasi
P.S. Case No.64 of 2022.)
1. Sakuntala Devi
2. Ram Prasad Saw @ Prasad Saw ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arti Devi ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate .
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate
JUDGMENT DATED: 13.02.2024
Heard learned Senior defence counsel Mr. A.K. Kashyap, appearing
on behalf of the appellants and learned PP Mr. Pankaj Kumar appearing
on behalf of the State, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Hadish Ansari
appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.05.2023
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau passed in ABP
No.351 of 2023, arising out of Tarhasi P.S. Case No.64 of 2022, whereby
and where under the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants
has been rejected.
3. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the gist of the allegations as set out in the FIR is that the co-
accused Rahul Saw @ Rahul Kumar along with these two appellants
indulged in the altercation with the informant and abused her by taking
the name of her caste and the dispute arose between them because of the
running of the shop of pakaudi.
4. It has further been alleged that the co-accused Rahul Saw @ Rahul
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.487 of 2023
Kumar had assaulted the informant and thrashed her on the ground and
started insulting and abusing her by taking the name of her caste.
5. Further it was alleged that the co-accused Rahul Saw @ Rahul
Kumar had poured hot oil on the son of the informant Jyotish Kumar
Paswan, due to which, he received severe burnt injuries.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted
that there is no direct allegations against anyone of these appellants and
all the remarks are sweeping in nature, as a matter of fact that dispute
arose between the parties for the running of the pakaudi shop in the
locality and it was the co-accused Rahul Saw / Rahul Kumar against
whom, there is allegation of using the abusive languages by taking the
name of the caste of the informant and also for causing injury to the son of
the informant by pouring hot oil and not against any one of these
appellants.
7. Further it has been submitted that against anyone of these appellants
there is no criminal history and therefore learned defence counsel relied
upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma
Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, in which,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is no direct allegation
has been attributed against the person, for using the abusive languages by
taking the name of the caste and the dispute is related to something else,
like in the present case that the dispute between the parties arose because
of the running of the pakaudi shop and there is no direct allegation against
anyone of the appellants and as such, they deserve to get the anticipatory
bail.
8. On the other hand, learned PP assisted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of OP No. 2 have vehemently opposed the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellants and submitted that it is a serious offence alleged to
have been committed by the all the accused persons including these two
appellants.
9. Further it has been submitted that from the FIR itself, it is found that
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.487 of 2023
all the co-accused persons have used the abusive languages by taking the
name of the caste of the informant and it was the co-accused Rahul Saw @
Rahul Kumar, who had thrashed the informant and poured the hot oil on
her son Jyotish Prasad Paswan, by which, he sustained severe injuries, as
evident from the case diary.
10. It has further been submitted that there are direct allegations against
these appellants and therefore they do not deserve to get the privilege of
anticipatory bail and it is submitted that this appeal is fit to be dismissed
being devoid of merit.
11. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
12. It has been pointed out that the main allegation as attributed is
against the co-accused Rahul saw @ Rahul Kumar, who had used the
abusive languages and thrashed the informant and had poured hot oil
upon her son, by which, he sustained severe injuries. However, it is found
that the dispute arose between the parties for the running of the pakaudi
shop and it has not specifically been attributed against anyone of the
appellants that they had used abusive languages and the allegations made
against these appellants were omnibus and general in nature. It has
further been found that the co-accused Rahul saw @ Rahul Kumar is said
to have been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 14th June 2023 in
criminal appeal (SJ) No.51 of 2023 by this Court.
13. It has also been pointed out by the learned defence counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that the informant is said to have
been insulted by taking the name of the caste and by using abusive
languages not only because she was belonging to the SC / ST category,
rather the dispute had arisen in between the parties and altercation took
place between them because of the running of the pakaudi shop and
therefore there is no connectivity between the allegations, which has been
attributed against the appellants for using the abusive languages of caste
and there is only sweeping remarks and the allegations are general and
omnibus in nature and no specific allegation has been attributed against
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.487 of 2023
anyone of these appellants. It has further been submitted that there is no
criminal history against anyone of the appellants and this fact has not been
denied by the learned PP appearing on behalf of the State.
14. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and having gone through the records, it is found
just and fair to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to both the appellants
above named.
15. Accordingly, both the appellants above named are directed to be
enlarged on bail in the event of their surrender / arrest within 15 days from
today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Palamau, in connection
with Tarhasi P.S. Case No.64 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further subject
to the condition that the appellants will co-operate in the investigation and
appear before the I.O. / learned Court below as and when required by them,
failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below
for the cancellation of bail.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 10.05.2023
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau, passed in ABP
No.351 of 2023 arising out of Tarhasi P.S. Case No.64 of 2022 is hereby set-
aside.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 13.02.2024/NAFR
R.Kumar/-
