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
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.
The high court concluded that “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 the 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.”