Binit Kumar Pandey @ Binit Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3604 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2020 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran ====================================================== Binit Kumar Pandey @ Binit Pandey, S/o Sri Ghanshyam Pandey, resident of village-Basahi, P.S.- Janta Bazar, District- Saran ... ... Appellant
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sushil Kumar Paswan, S/o Jagdish Manjhi, R/o village-Basahi, P.S.- Janta Bazar, District- Saran (informant).
... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate Mr. Udbhav, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2.
The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3rd-cum-Special SC/ST Act, Saran in connection with Janta Bazar P.S. Case No.146 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447,
2/4 341, 302, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Act, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Notice was issued vide order dated 07.12.2022 by this Court regarding present proceedings in terms of Section 15-A(2) of the Act to the informant.
5. It is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that information already given to informant in terms of aforesaid order but, he failed to join the present proceeding.
6. Accused/appellant is named in the FIR.
7. Allegation against the appellant is to commit murder of brother of the informant along with other coaccused persons, equipped with deadly weapons and also with firearms.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that specific allegation of assault is against co-accused,
3/4 Mrityunjay Pandey and allegation as regard to firing is against Pushkar Pandey, where allegation against appellant is limited to be member of mob only, instigating to fire. It is also submitted that appellant is a man of clean antecedent. While concluding argument, it is submitted that from a bare perusal of FIR, it appears that there is no overt act against the appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if insult is not caused to complainant/informant on the basis of caste, no case is made out under the Act, as it was held in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Parasram @ Purushottam as reported in [2015 (153)AIC 276].
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant fairly conceded the fact that allegation against appellant is very much general and omnibus.
11. In view of aforesaid factual submissions, as no overt act appears to be attributed against the appellant, accordingly, the appellant, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the trial court within a period of
4/4 four weeks, is directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3rd-cum-Special SC/ST Act Court, Saran in connection with Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 146 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC/under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 is set aside.
13. The appeal stands allowed.
Sanjeet/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14-09-2024 Transmission Date 14-09-2024