Manoj Kumar Sahani @ Manoj Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1394 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Manoj Kumar Sahani @ Manoj Sahani ( male ), aged about 42 years, Son of Paras Nath Sahani 2.

Pramod Kumar Sahani @ Pramod Sahani ( male ), aged about 37 years, Son of Paras Nath Sahani 3.

Paras Nath Sahani ( male ), aged about 67 years, Son of Late Ramdeo Sahani All are resident of Village- Ratnauli, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Shila Devi (female) , aged about years, W/o Ram Jivan Paswan Resident of Village- Ratnauli, P.S.- Maniyari, Distt- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Vipin Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2020 Heard Mr. Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -IX - cum- Special Judge ( SC / ST Act ), Muzaffarpur in A.B.P. No. 359 of 2020 in connection with Complaint Case No. 63 of 2018 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 , 379, 354 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (i) (x) of SC / ST Act, whereby the prayer

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1394 of 2020(2) dt.24-09-2020 2/3 for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. The prosecution story as per the complaint lodged by the complainant - Shila Devi is that she had gone at the shop of the appellant no. 1 - Manoj Kumar Sahani @ Manoj Sahani to purchase 1 KG Potato and 1 KG Onion and when she asked for refund of Rs. 2/-, the accused persons including the appellants abused the complainant and called her by caste name and also snatched golden locket worth Rs. 5000/- from her neck. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case as a counter blast inasmuch as earlier the appellant no. 2 -Pramod Kumar Sahani @ Pramod Sahani had lodged an F.I.R. bearing Maniyari P.S. Case No. 99 of 2018 against the family members of the complainant under Sections 341 / 323 / 379 / 427 / 504 / 34 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of the solemn affirmation (SA) of the complainant it does not appear that she was abused by her caste name in full public view.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 in A.B.P. No. 359 of 2020 in connection with Complaint Case

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1394 of 2020(2) dt.24-09-2020 3/3 No. 63 of 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -IX- - cum- Special Judge ( SC / ST Act ), Muzaffarpur is set aside.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender by the appellants, above named, before the court below within six weeks from today, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge -IX - cumSpecial Judge (SC / ST Act), Muzaffarpur / court concerned in connection with Complaint Case No. 63 of 2018 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure.

It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bond all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding lockdown and social distancing.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T