LAWS(JHAR)-2019-10-63

KALIM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On October 17, 2019
Kalim Ansari Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal arises out of order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, in A.B.P. No. 677 of 2019 in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 429 of 2018, SC/ST Case No. 15/19 under Section 147,341,323,379,427,385 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Giridih.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the appellants were still on police bail as was apparent from the case diary. He submits that the learned court below has held that anticipatory bail itself was not maintainable on the ground that charge sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sections 147,341,323,427,385 of the Indian Penal Code and the court took cognizance under Sections 147,341,323,379,427,385 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 04.04.2019. The anticipatory bail filed by the appellants has been rejected by referring to Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1989 and the appellants were directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel submits that as the appellants were granted police bail and the bail bond was not cancelled, therefore the learned court below was not justified in directing the appellants to surrender and rejecting the anticipatory bail. He further submits that as the appellants were still on police bail therefore anticipatory bail itself was not maintainable and this has been decided by this court in A.B.A. No. 3001 of 2018 and other analogous cases vide order dated 18.06.2018. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the parties are present in the court and they have filed joint compromise petition before this court.