Mantu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4258 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.909 of 2022
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-775 Year-2021 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
     ======================================================

Mantu Yadav, Son Of Munshi Yadav, Resident of Village - Haraiya, P.S.- Barachatti, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Gita Devi, W/o Sri Raju Bhuiyan, Resident of Village - Haraiya, P.s.-

Barachatti and Distt.- Gaya.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No2, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-08-2022

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Spl. P.P. for the state.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be

removed within a period of four weeks from the date of

resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

This is an appeal under Section 14 (a)(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by

order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned Exclusive Special

Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with Barachatti

(Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 775 of 2021 registered for the

offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 504, 506 and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.909 of 2022 dt.04-08-2022

354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (s) (r) (w) of

the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989.

As per the prosecution case, in the background of

some land dispute, the appellant and other co-accused persons

assaulted the complainant/informant and her family members

with lathi, danda, fists and slaps. They also pull down a wall

being erected by the informant on her land. Allegation against

this appellant is that he sexually assaulted the informant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

whole prosecution case is not believable. The land dispute is

admitted and altogether nine persons of one family have been

made accused in this case. It is not believable that father, uncle,

sons and nephew have participated in an assault in which the

petitioner allegedly sexually assaulted a female in presence of

his eldest. False implication is further apparent from the date of

registration of the case. For an occurrence dated 27.06.2021, the

complaint has been lodged on 15.11.2021 i.e., almost five

months after the alleged occurrence. The incorporation of

provisions of SC/ST Act is only superfluous and to make the

offence serious. In the background of land dispute, false

implication cannot be ruled out. Though the assault has

allegedly taken place but there is no injury report or anything Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.909 of 2022 dt.04-08-2022

about the injury in the FIR. Further there is no reasonable

explanation for delay in lodging of the FIR. Charge-sheet has

been submitted and the petitioner is in custody since

10.01.2022.

Learned Spl.PP opposes the prayer for bail submitting

that there is specific allegation against this petitioner for sexual

assault against the informant.

Perused the records.

It appears from the record that the

informant/respondent no.2 has appeared through Vakalatnama

but no one is present on behalf of the respondent no.2.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also

the submission made on behalf of the parties and further

considering the fact that land dispute is apparent on the face of

the record and there is strong possibility of false implication and

further considering the submission of charge sheet in this case

and also the period of his custody, the appellant above named is

directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge,

SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S.

Case No. 775 of 2021, subject to the conditions mentioned in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.909 of 2022 dt.04-08-2022

Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the

following conditions :

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of

the appellant, preferably one of the parents.

(ii) The appellant will remain present on each

and every date fixed by the court below.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive

dates or in violation of the terms of the bail,

the bail bond of the appellant will be liable to

be cancelled by the court concerned.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the

appeal is allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

balmukund/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          05.08.2022
Transmission Date       05.08.2022