ASHOK SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.05.2019 passed in M.C.A. No. 543 of 2019, arising out of Complaint Case No. 43 of 2017, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih.

(3.) The complaint case was filed under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 506,34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Counsel for the appellant submits that as is apparent from the impugned order itself, cognizance has been taken under Sections 341,323,379,506,34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has failed to take note of the fact that neither in the petition it has been stated that the occurrence took place in a place within public view, nor there is any averment that the appellant is not a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. He further submits that so far as sections 341,323,506,34 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable, Section 379 of IPC as well as provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are non bailable. Counsel further submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case , no case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. Counsel further submits that this court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 506 of 2018 has been pleased to enlarge the co-accused namely Shankar Prasad Sharma @ Shankar Prasad and Shyam Nandan Tiwari @ Shyam Nandan Tiwary on anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.06.2018 by imposing certain conditions and he is also ready to abide by some conditions if this court is inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. He further submits that another co-accused namely Sikandar Saw has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.02.2019 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1028 of 2018 as contained in Annexure-3 to this appeal.