Ram Khelawan Sahni @ Gabbar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.46 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2019 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== RAM KHELAWAN SAHNI @ GABBAR S/o Dhanik Sahni Resident of Village-Manuar Jalai, P.S-Mahishi (Jalai OP), District-Saharsa. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Amarnath Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual Court proceedings.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer of anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.07.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharsa in connection with Mahishi (Jalai O.P.) P.S. Case No. 183/2019 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 302, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2021(4) dt.02-02-2022 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in the case due to dirty village politics. The allegation levelled against the appellant is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The allegation of slating the informant levelled against the appellant is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Per contra, learned Spl. PP for the State vehemently opposing the prayer for bail submitted that appellant has been declared absconder and processes under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. has been completed and charge sheet has also been submitted against him. Therefore, the appellant does not deserve anticipatory bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T