Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 July, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.595 of 2020
------
Sanjay Singh .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjay Paswan .... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Adv.
------
Order No.07 Dated- 16.07.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2020, passed by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.101 of 2017 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 436, 427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act and under Section 3/5 of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and where under, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that earlier the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.2174 of 2017 was filed challenging the said order was dismisses by this court vide order dated 24.04.2018. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile 14 out of 18 witnesses have been examined during the trial and out of whom P.W.-6, P.W.-7, P.W.-8, P.W.-10, P.W. 11, P.W.13 and the witness Shila Kunwar whose next number has been mentioned as P.W.10 instead of being P.W.12 even after correction have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and the other witnesses have stated that they identified the appellant by his voice but have not seen the appellant. It is further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj has rejected the prayer of bail of the appellant again and that the appellant has all along been in jail custody since 23.02.2017. It is next submitted that the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and that the alleged injured witness of the prosecution namely Rupa Kumari who happens to be the daughter of the informant has not stated or alleged anything against the appellant in her deposition during the trial. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions. Drawing attention of this Court towards supplementary affidavit dated 01.07.2021, learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the genesis of occurrence is land dispute between the parties and the reference of which has also been made in the F.I.R., and the description of the said land as follows:- Khata No.66, Plot No.1034, area 72 decimals of village Udaypura P.S.- Tarhasi, District-Palamu and out of the said land, 18 Kathas of the land have been purchased by the respondent no.2 through registered deed of sale from Sital Singh and Rambriksha Singh, both sons of Late Ramweshwar Singh and Awadhesh Singh & Rampratap Singh son of Sundar Bihari Singh one and half year before the occurrence. It is next submitted that the appellant undertakes that he will not disturb the possession of the respondent no.2 or his nephew over the land of the said Khata No.66, Plot No.1034, area 72 decimals of village Udaypura P.S.-Tarhasi, District-Palamu in any manner during the pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case and undertakes that the appellant will not annoy or disturb the respondent no.2 or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner in defence the impugned order. It is next submitted that the learned trial court having rightly convicted prayer for bail, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
Considering the facts of this case and period in custody undergone by the appellant this court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj by which he has been rejected the prayer for regular bail of the appellant is not sustainable in law, accordingly, the same is set aside and the appellant is directed to be released on bail during the pendency of trial, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.101 of 2017 with the condition that the appellant will not disturb the possession of the respondent no.2 or his nephew over the land of the said Khata No.66, Plot No.1034, area 72 decimals of village Udaypura P.S.-Tarhasi, District-Palamu in any manner during the pendency of the case and will not annoy or disturb the respondent no.2 or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case.
In the result, this appeal is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pappu/