Suman Kumar Singh @ Suman Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2081 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1395 of 2023
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2020 Thana- HARINMAR District- Munger
     ======================================================

Suman Kumar Singh @ Suman Singh S/o- Mahesh Singh Village- Raita Ps- Harinmar Dist- Munger ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Pinki Devi wife of Late Devendra Paswan, Village- Athsaihiya P.S.-

Harinmar Dist- Munger.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv.

Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, Spl. PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-05-2023

Heard Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, learned counsel for the

appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari No.1, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the State.

This is the second attempt wherein the appellant is

renewing his prayer for bail by filing the instant appeal under

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the refusal of prayer for

bail vide order dated 23.06.2021 passed by learned Special

Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-A.D.J.-I, Munger in Harinmar P.S. Case

No. 04 of 2020 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter

referred to as the "SC/ST, Act").

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1395 of 2023 dt.03-05-2023

Earlier, the prayer for bail of the appellant was

rejected vide order dated 15.09.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ)

No. 395 of 2022 after taking into consideration the specific

nature of accusation. While rejecting the prayer of the appellant,

this Court had observed and directed the learned Trial Court to

take all measures to expedite and conclude the trial as early as

possible, and if there would not be any substantive

improvement, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his

prayer for bail after five months.

The status report was called for vide order dated

29.03.2023 and it has been apprised to this Court that till date

out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, only five of the charge-sheet

witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for evidence

of rest charge-sheet witnesses.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is in custody since 26.01.2021 and even as per the

FIR, it is evident that the informant, who is claiming herself to

be an eyewitness to the occurrence, has not made any specific

allegation in her written report against anyone rather general

and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all. However,

during the course of investigation, improvement has been made

and specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1395 of 2023 dt.03-05-2023

The appellant is ready to give undertaking that he will fully

cooperate in the trial and remain present on each and every date

of trial till disposal of the case.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the

bail application and submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the

appellant was rejected and there is no overwhelming reasons to

reconsider the matter afresh on merit. It is also submitted that

the trial is likely to be concluded in near future. She lastly

submits that the impugned order is dated 23.06.2021 and the

present appeal filed on 20.03.2023, appears to be hopelessly

barred by limitation in view of Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST

Act. She submits that every appeal under this Section shall be

preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of

judgment, sentence or order in appeal from, provided that the

High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said

period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant has

sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within a period of

ninety days. It is further provided that no appeal shall be

entertained after expiry of period of one hundred and eighty

days.

In response to the aforesaid submission, it is

submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the appellant had Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1395 of 2023 dt.03-05-2023

earlier approached this Court against the order dated 23.06.2021

in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 395 of 2022, which was well within the

time and wherein his prayer for bail was rejected with an

observation and liberty to renew his prayer after five months.

Thereupon, the present appeal has been preferred in view of the

liberty granted by this Court, thus this appeal may be treated in

continuation of the earlier appeal, inasmuch as the order under

challenge is also the same and one. Hence, Section 14A(3) of

the SC/ST Act would not be attracted in present appeal. Lastly,

an oral submission has been made to condone the delay, if any,

in preferring the present appeal.

This Court finds substance in the submission of the

learned counsel for the appellant. However, in view of the

prayer, the delay pointed out by the Registry is, hereby,

condoned.

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf

of the parties and considering the observation and the liberty

granted to the petitioner as also the period of custody, coupled

with the fair antecedent and there is no likelihood of conclusion

of trial in near future, in complete defiance of Section 14(3) of

the SC/ST Act, let the petitioner, named above, be released on

bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1395 of 2023 dt.03-05-2023

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-A.D.J.-I, Munger in

Harinmar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2020, subject to the condition that

one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the appellant with

further conditions which are as follows:-

(i) The appellant will cooperate in conclusion of the

trial.

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date

of trial till disposal of the case.

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or

intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.

(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates

without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be

cancelled.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.06.2021

passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-A.D.J.-I,

Munger in Harinmar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2020, is set aside and

the appeal stands allowed.

(Harish Kumar, J) rohit/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          05-05-2023
Transmission Date       05-05-2023