Danish @ Md.Danish Kamar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3434 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 15 of 2021
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2020 Thana- BALIA BELON District- Katihar
      ======================================================

1. Danish @ Md. Danish Kamar, aged about 28 years, Male, Son of Late Wahid Moulvi Resident of Mohalla- Barkhal, PS- Salmari, District- Katihar.

2. Md. Niyaz Alam @ Niyaz, aged about 19 years, Male Son of Ayub Alam, Resident of Mohalla- Unaso Pachgachi, PS- Salmari, District- Katihar.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-07-2021

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 appellants on

14.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the appellants and Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated

16.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge I cum Special Judge, Katihar in ABP No. 48 of 2020 by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.15 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been

rejected.

5. The appellants apprehend arrest in connection with

Baliya Belon PS Case No. 60 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 186, 353, 504, 506 and 346 of the Indian

Penal Code and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

6. The allegation against the appellants and one other

co-accused is of preventing the police from discharging their duty

of vehicle checking and also of making the vehicles which were

stopped for checking to go away and further against the appellants

is of abusing one of the police personnel by his caste name.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as

per the FIR itself, there were about 40 vehicles which were being

kept and there was checking being made by the informant in the

presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic and five

other policemen when it is alleged that the appellants came on a

motorcycle and objected to it and that they made the vehicles

which were standing for checking go away. Learned counsel

submitted that prima facie itself, the said allegation is totally false,

concocted and unbelievable as it cannot be expected that two

private citizens would come and would be in a position to make Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.15 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

40 vehicles go away in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent

of Police and five other policemen without being arrested,

detained or prevented from doing so. It was submitted that even

the name of the appellants is said to have transpired from the

persons who had gathered at the spot, which also indicates false

implication for members of the mob would not disclose the name

of one of their side as the appellants were also acting in support of

what the mob was trying to achieve. Learned counsel submitted

that even the allegation of using caste name against one police

personnel is totally unfounded for the reason that the appellants

could not have known the caste of that particular police personnel

so as to call him by that name and it has also not been alleged in

the FIR as to whether he belonged to the SC/ST category and still

the invocation of the provision of SC/ST Act has been mentioned

in the FIR, only with a purpose of harassing the appellants. It was

submitted that the appellants have no criminal antecedent and that

neither there was any injury caused to any person, including the

policemen nor damage to any public or private property.

8. Learned APP submitted that the appellants had

prevented the police from discharging their duty. However, she

could not explain the circumstances enumerated by learned

counsel for the appellants as to how two persons could prevent six Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.15 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

policemen and one Deputy Superintendent of Police from

discharging their duty without being arrested or action taken

against them. It was also not controverted that without there being

any mentioning as to which caste the policeman, who was abused

belonged, it was difficult to justify invocation of the provisions of

SC/ST Act in the present case.

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 appellants be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge I cum Special

Judge, Katihar in Baliya Belon PS Case No. 60 of 2020 subject to

the 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 appellants, (ii) that the appellants

and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with

regard to good behaviour of the appellants and (iii) that they shall

co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of

the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure

to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.15 of 2021 dt.19-07-2021

10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the appellants, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

appellants.

11. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the

appeal stands allowed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T