Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 March, 2014
Author: R. R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 107 of 2014
Bharat Kumar Singh ..... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Appellant(s) : M/s Manoj Kumar Sah,
Vivek Kumar, Advocates.
For the State : A.P.P.
-----
02 /28.03.2014. Admit.
Issue notice.
Call for the L.C.R.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State on the matter of bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that one Meera Kumari had lodged a case for commission of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the complainant, but the complainant was found guilty for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. In that case this appellant was assisting Meera Kumari in prosecuting her case and, therefore, the complainant lodged the case against this appellant on the allegation that this appellant had brought Meera Kumari before him for doing the household job, but she was driven out of house on account of some reason. Subsequently the appellant brought Meera Kumari before the complainant and made request to the complainant to give her job again, but the complainant refused to obey him and upon it, this appellant is said to have abused the complainant to humiliate him and further it has been alleged that this appellant had sent another man to convey the complainant to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/- so that he will get the case lodged by Meera Kumari withdrawn. On such allegation, the appellant was convicted under Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(ii)(x) and 3(2)(ii) of the S.C. and S.T. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act and also under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code but accepting the entire allegation to be true, no case is made out either under Section 384 I.P.C. or under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act as the appellant has never been alleged to have abused the complainant to humiliate him within a public view.
-2- [Cr. Appeal [SJ] No.107 of 2014] At the same time, no offence is made out under Section 3(2)(ii) of the S.C. and S.T. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act as it was not the appellant who had lodged the case against the complainant rather it was Meera Kumari who had lodged the case and for the same reason no offence is made out under Section 3(i)(ix)of the S.C. and S.T. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act and that no allegation is there attracting ingredients of the offence under Section 384 I.P.C.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, the appellant, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I Cum Special Judge, Sahibganj in connection with Special Case No.5 of 2009.
(R. R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/