Appellant released on bail  after being arrested under Sections 341/323/504/506/34 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(ra) of the SC/ST Act: High court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEALNo.21 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 23 Year 2020 Thana SC ST District Saran Raju Prasad Gupta @ Raju Kumar 38 years Son of Late Bharat Prasad Gupta R o Village New Colony Katahari Bagh P.S. Chapra Town District Saran Chapra The State of Bihar ... Appellant s ... Respondent s For the Appellant s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh Advocate Ms. Usha Kumari Spl. PP Date : 13 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 07.07.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari learned Special Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge First Special Judge SC ST Saran in ABP No. 1678 of 2020 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected 5. The appellant apprehends arrest in connection with Chapra SC ST PS Case No. 23 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020 Patna High Court CR. APPNo.21 dt.13 07 2021 instituted under Sections 341 323 504 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(r)(s) 3(2)(ra) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 1989 hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC ST Act’ 6. The allegation against the appellant is that he along with five others had come at the spot where the informant was watering the under construction wall of one Santosh Kumar Gupta and had abused him taking caste name as to why he was watering the said wall and further that he was dragged and assaulted and his wife was also abused 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has been unnecessarily made an accused due to rivalry between Santosh Kumar Gupta and co accused Bhupendra Singh. It was submitted that the informant is a labourer servant of Santosh Kumar Gupta against whom co accused Bhupendra Singh has lodged Chapra Town PS Case No. 620 under Sections 420 406 386 467 468 of the Indian Penal Code on 05.03.2020 and as a counter blast the present case has been filed. It was submitted that since the wife of the appellant and Santosh Kumar Gupta have bought part of land from Bhupendra Singh and due to some dispute Bhupendra Singh has filed the said case against Santosh Kumar Gupta and Santosh Kumar Gupta Patna High Court CR. APPNo.21 dt.13 07 2021 has got the present case lodged through his servant the informant and as the appellant had good term with Bhupendra Singh he has also been made accused. It was submitted that besides no case being made out under the SC ST Act as there is no allegation that in public view any abusive language or assault had taken place later on the informant having realised his mistake has submitted a written application to the Officer in Charge of the concerned police station stating that he had compromised the matter as far as the appellant is concerned and that he had no grievance against him now. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has no other criminal antecedent 8. Learned Sp. PP submitted that though there is allegation of abuse by caste name and also general and omnibus assault it appears that the informant himself has withdrawn the complaint as far as the appellant is concerned 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 No.21 dt.13 07 2021 Saran Chapra in SC ST PS Case No. 220 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the appellant andthat the appellant shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate 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 is allowed. The order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge First Special Judge SC ST Saran in ABP No. 1678 of 2020 stands set aside (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The additional session judge on the 15/09/2020 passed an order rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail for the appellant therefore The counsel for the appellant filed a motion slip on the 7th of July 2021 allowed by the court, an appeal directing against the said order. In connection with the Chapra SC/ST PS Case No. 23 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020, the appellant was arrested under Sections 341 IPC, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “ Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” Section 506, “Punishment for criminal intimidation”, section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” And 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(ra) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, “Punishments for offenses of atrocities.” This judgment was given in the high court of judicature at Patna by Honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 13th of July 2021 in the case of Raju Prasad Gupta @Raju Kumar v/s the state of Bihar criminal appeal No.9 of 2021, Mr. Mukesh Kumar represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kumari represented as the special public prosecutor for the state of Bihar. The proceedings of the court were held through video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the informant was watering an under-construction wall the appellant was along with five others approached the spot and abused the informant by taking caste name and dragged him, and assaulted him and his wife was also abused all in the name of caste. According to the counsel for the appellant, he submitted before the courts that the accusation was unnecessary and was initiated due to the rivalry between the parties. The informant is a laborer working under one Mr. Santosh Gupta. Now the wife of the appellant and Mr. Santosh bought land from Mr. Singh and due to some dispute the said case has been filed and not due to caste dispute. He conceded that no allegation was made of using abusive language, the counsel stated that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, he also mentioned that the informant had written to the police that the matter has been compromised. The special public prosecutor held that even though there have been accusations of abuse in the name of caste and general assault but since the informant has withdrawn the complaint and compromised the matter there has been no further objection. The court held that the appellant will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000 and two sureties of an amount satisfactory to the additional session judge. Bail will be given only under the conditions laid down in section 438(2) Cr.P.C. “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the appellant, and (ii) that the appellant shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution.” Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds.