Rambali Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1008 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2020 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui ====================================================== Rambali Ravidas S/O Ramshir Ravidas Resident Of Village- Chauraha, P.SChandradeep, Dist- Jamaui. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sabuja Devi Naval Kishore Ravidas Resident of village- Chaurasa, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist.- Jamui ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. The present appeal filed under Section 3(II)(v)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, ( hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act) preferred against the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in connection with Chandradeep P.S.Case No. 665 of 2020, instituted for the offence under Sections 302,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and whereby prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. As per the prosecution case, on 06.02.2020 all the accused persons namely Anil Sao, Ajit Sao, Rahul Sao and

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1008 of 2021(4) dt.22-03-2023 2/2 Chintu Sao came to the house of the informant and abused her by caste name. It is further alleged that they took her husband for talking but he did not return, later on his dead body was found laying in a field.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the only allegation against this petitioner is demand of ransom. The informant is not an eye witness of actual occurrence and only on suspicion, he has been made accused in this case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail prayer of the appellant and submits that the appellant took away informant's husband for some talk thereafter his dead body was recovered from a field. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the fact that the appellant abused the informant by naming his caste, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant, accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) N.K/- U T