Jharkhand High Court
Dayal Hari @ Dayal Hadi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 196 of 2023
------
Dayal Hari @ Dayal Hadi
@ Banti Hadi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Subhash Kumar
3. Tarkeshwar Kumhar @ Tarkeswar Kumar.... .... Respondents
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Vimal, Advocate
------
Order No. 07 Dated- 12.01.2024
On call, all the counsels have appeared.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated
23.01.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 115 of 2023 by the
learned Special Judge SC/ST, Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case
No. 52 of 2022 arising out of C. P. Case No. 6986 of 2022 for the offences
under Sections 323/341/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 3(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015
whereby and whereunder, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Special Judge while granting anticipatory bail has not recorded any
finding with respect to the fact that no prima facie case under SC/ST
Act is made out against the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel
has further submitted that the learned Special Judge while passing the
impugned order has failed to take into consideration that SC/ST Act
bars the court to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out from
the complaint petition filed by the complainant namely Dayal Hari @
Dayal Hadi @ Banti Hadi and pointed out that in Paragraph - 2 of the
complaint petition itself the allegations made under the concerned
Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Sections pertaining to the
atrocities against SC/ST Act can be made out and, therefore, on the
basis of such allegations, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. He
has also referred to the depositions of E/W - 01, Sriram Kumhar and
E/W - 02, Ganga Prasad Rawani and pointed out that even
from their depositional statements, it is clear that prima facie case
against the respondents can be made out but in spite of that
anticipatory bail has been allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the case of
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. and stated that only
when an accused person against whom allegation is made under the
provision of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and the allegations prima facie do not seem to be made
out, then only he should be allowed the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel has further submitted that in this case, the case against
the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are fully made out and, therefore, the
privilege of anticipatory bail should not be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the other
hand, has referred to the impugned order and pointed out that Subhash
Kumar, respondent no. 2, had given information through informatory
petition to the Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad against nine persons
wherein he had made allegations of threat and land dispute against the
said nine persons including the inquiry witnesses Sriram Kumhar and
Ganga Prasad Rawani. He has further submitted that from the
impugned anticipatory bail order that the informatory petition was
given as early as 11.03.2022 and the present complaint case was filed on
19.07.2022. Learned counsel has therefore pointed out that the court has
observed that there is some previous dispute and, therefore, the present
complaint petition has been designed against the appellant invoking the
provision of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. However, learned counsel submits that it is well
established that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent nos. 2
and 3 should not be easily cancelled. He has further submitted that it is
a question of liberty of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the liberty
should not be curtailed particularly at the second instance. If at all, it
should have been addressed at the first instance but once the liberty has
already been granted then it should be continued. He has further relied
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pritpal Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC online SC 123.
8. It is a settled principle of law that the bail once granted can
ordinarily be cancelled on the following grounds illustratively though
not exhaustively:-
(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which
would hamper smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,
(vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground
or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his
surety, etc.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submits that as far as
he understands none of the aforesaid grounds as indicated above is
made out and, therefore, anticipatory bail should not be cancelled.
Leaned counsel for the respondents further adds that the informatory
petition was given much earlier but this complaint petition is delayed
because the occurrence is of 14.07.2022 and the complaint petition has
been filed on 19.07.2022. Moreover, there is no mention in the complaint
petition that earlier no written complaint was made to the police
station. Therefore, the counsel says that on such ground the prayer of
the appellant should be rejected.
10. Having heard both the counsel, having noted their submissions
and also having noted the records available, the impugned order itself
and also the cited judgement of the Apex Court, I am inclined to reject
this criminal appeal.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Umesh/-
uploaded
