Patna High Court
Manjit Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 6 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1022 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2020 Thana- NOKHA District-Sasaram
======================================================
Manjit Singh, aged about 40 years, Male, son of Surya bali Singh, resident of
Village-Taradh, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-07-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis
of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the appellant on
29.06.2021, which was allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior
counsel along with Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, learned counsel
for the appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari, learned Special Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'Spl. PP') for the State.
4. The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned 1st Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in ABP No. 189 of 2020
by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has
been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP(SJ) No. 1022 of 2021 dt.06-07-2021
5. The appellant apprehends arrest in connection with
Nokha PS Case No. 152 of 2020 dated 01.08.2020, instituted
under Sections 341/353/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and
3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'SC/ST Act').
6. The allegation against the appellant is that he had
rung up the informant, who is the Block Development Officer,
Nokha in the district of Rohtas and had abused him as also the
Mukhiya complaining that Corona was spreading in his village
and nothing was being done by the Mukhiya. Further, it is
alleged that when the informant after half an hour went to
Taradh he saw one person breaking the barricade who started
abusing upon seeing the informant and also took his caste name
and when he was told not to do so, he became belligerent and
did not let the informant and his team put back the barricade and
they had to return. It has been stated that upon asking he told his
name Manjit Singh, that is, the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
present is a totally false and malicious case. It was submitted
that the FIR itself shows that the informant had received a call
from a particular mobile number, but the appellant has no
Patna High Court CR. APP(SJ) No. 1022 of 2021 dt.06-07-2021
concern with the said mobile number. It was submitted that
during investigation, from the CDR it is clear that the appellant
has no concern with the mobile number from which the
informant is said to have received the call. Thus, learned
counsel submitted that someone else had used the mobile and
the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel
submitted that even otherwise, the allegation is false for the
reason that it cannot be believed that the informant along with
his team would be stopped in doing their duty by one person as
it is not alleged that there was anyone else and also the fact that
the appellant would be bold enough to identify himself. It was
submitted that no prudent man would believe that if an officer
comes with his team and he is alone, he would keep committing
any wrong and even if the same is true, it cannot be believed
that he would disclose his name and other details to such officer.
Learned counsel submitted that the informant with his team not
being able to repair the barricading just because of one person
also indicates that there is no truth in such allegation. Summing
up his arguments, learned counsel submitted that against the
informant, villagers have complained to the District Magistrate,
Rohtas that though the village Taradh has been declared a
Containment Zone by the informant, but no government facility
Patna High Court CR. APP(SJ) No. 1022 of 2021 dt.06-07-2021
was available there and further that the appellant is a simple
farmer having no other criminal antecedent. Learned counsel
submitted that even the allegation under the SC/ST Act is not
made out as it is not alleged that the same took place in full
view of the public as not even one name of any other person
besides the informant has been indicated in the FIR. Thus, it
was submitted that no offence against the appellant is made out
from the plain reading of the FIR itself as there is nothing to
connect any wrong doing to the appellant.
8. Learned Special PP submitted that the appellant has
disclosed his name, both on the telephone as well as at the spot
where the informant had gone and had found the appellant
breaking the barricade and the informant was prevented from
repairing the same.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in
the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within
six weeks from today, the appellant be released on bail upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sasaram,
Rohtas in Nokha PS Case No. 152 of 2020, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. APP(SJ) No. 1022 of 2021 dt.06-07-2021
conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a
close relative of the appellant, (ii) that the appellant and the
bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to
good behaviour of the appellant, and (iii) that the appellant shall
cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Any
violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the
undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to cancellation of his
bail bonds.
10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any
violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the appellant, to
the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate
action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the
appellant.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The order
dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned 1st Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in ABP No. 189 of 2020 is
set aside.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
