Jharkhand High Court

Manish Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 238 of 2024

----

Manish Kumar Choubey, aged about 45 years, son of Late Shiv Prakash Choubey, Amla Tola, PO and PS - Chaibasa, District -

      Singhbhum West                                      .... Appellant
                                   --       Versus   --
      1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Doman Marandi, son of not known to the appellants, resident of Clerk Colony, Qr. No.14 PO Tungri, PS Muffasil, Town Chaibasa District Singhbhum (West.) .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Appellant :- Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate :- Mr. Manjeet Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate :- Mrs. Sumitra Kumari, Advocat

----

09/17.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned

counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the

respondent no.2.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated

12.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-

Special Judge (SC/ST), West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in SC/ST

(Mufassil) Case No.05/2014 corresponding to SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of

2018 whereby prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail, for the

offence under section 420 of the IPC and section 3(x) of Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has

been rejected, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

--1-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 238 of 2024 learned court has taken cognizance under section 3(1)(r)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. He submits that the allegations are said to be of 20 days before

and the case was registered after 20 days. He submits that the charge

sheet has already been submitted and the learned court has taken

cognizance. He submits that the police has not taken the appellant in

custody and now the learned court is calling upon. He submits that the

ingredients of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. He submits that there is no

allegation against the appellant and the appellant has not been sent up

for trial and even the protest petition was not filed, however, the

learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the

appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the

prayer and submits that the ingredients of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out and it

has occurred in public view and in view of that the learned court has

rightly passed the order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the

anticipatory bail is not maintainable in light of section 18 of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. He further submits that the allegations are there and in view of

that, the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that in

the case diary, the materials have also come against the appellant.

6. Looking into the contents of the F.I.R it transpires that the

--2-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 238 of 2024 occurrence is of June, 2014 and the F.I.R was registered on 20.7.2014.

It is stated in the complaint that the complaint was made against the

Commissioner (Kolhan) before the Chairman, SC/ST Committee which

was returned back and thereafter the present complaint is filed. The

appellant has not been sent up for trial and no protest petition was

filed. However, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance

against the appellant.

7. A reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of "Shajan Skaria V. State of

Kerala" 2024 SCC Online SC 2249. The police has submitted

chargesheet and the learned court has taken cognizance. Thus, it

is clear that police has not arrested the appellants under section 41-

A of the Cr.P.C. and if such a situation is there, para 41 of "Shajan

Skaria V. State of Kerala" (supra) is helping the appellants.

Para 41 of the of the said judgement reads as under :-

"41. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that Section 18 of the At 1989 does not impose an absolute fetter on the power of the courts to examine whether a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out or not. As discussed, Section 18 stipulates that in any case which involves the arrest of any person on the accusation of having committed an offence under the Act, 1989, the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC would not be available to the accused. We have deliberated on the significance of the expression "arrest of any person" appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 and are of the view that Section 18 bars the remedy of anticipatory bail only in those cases where a valid arrest of the accused

--3-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 238 of 2024 person can be made as per Section 41 read with Section-60A-of Cr.P.C."

8. In para 61 of "Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala" (supra) it

has been held that not every intentional insult or intimidation of a

member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-

based humiliation. Para 61 of the judgment in "Shajan Skaria V.

State of Kerala" (supra) reads as under:

"61. The words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in the text Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste Identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or Intimidation. Not every Intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be an insult or Intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989"

9. In view of above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the appellant, and as such, the appellant, above named, is hereby

directed to surrender before the learned court concerned within three

weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the

appellant, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail

bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties

of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, West Singhbhum at

--4-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 238 of 2024 Chaibasa in SC/ST (Mufassil) Case No.5 of 2014 corresponding to

SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of 2018 subject to the conditions that appellant

shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or undue

influence to the prosecution witnesses and the appellant shall appear