Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
----
Santosh Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Late Uma Shankar
Prasad, Samrajya Apartment, New A.G. Colony, P.O. - Doranda, P.S.
- Argora, District - Ranchi .... Appellant
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Doman Marandi, son of not known to the appellant, 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 :- Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate
----
08/24.10.2024 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 in A.B.P. No.77 of 2024 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.
--1-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a treasury officer posted at Jamtara and falsely the said
case has been lodged against the appellant. He further submits that
the 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
--2-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
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
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
--3-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
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
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 six
weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the
appellant, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail
--4-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
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
Chaibasa in SC/ST (Mufassil) Case No.05 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
before the trial court as and when required by the said learned trial
court till the disposal of the trial.
10. This appeal is allowed and disposed of and the impugned
order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa
in SC/ST (Mufassil) Case No.05 of 2014 corresponding to SC/ST P.S.
Case No.09 of 2018 in A.B.P. No.77 of 2024 is hereby set-aside.
11. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/-
--5-- Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 240 of 2024
