Karan Jaiswal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.97 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -430 Year- 2017 Thana -RAMNAGAR DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================
1. Karan Jaiswal, Son of Sohan Jaiswal,
2. Chandan Jaiswal, Son of Shatrudhan Jaiswal, Both resident of VillageMojara Police Station- Ramnagar, Dist- West Champaran. .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st -cum-Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), West Champaran at Bettiah, in connection with Ramnagar Police Station Case No.430 of 2017 registered under Sections 354A(iv)/354(C)/354(D)(i)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Allegation against the appellant Karan Jaiswal is that on telephone call he threatened the informant to marry with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.97 of 2018 (4) dt.05-03-2018 P2/ him. The aforesaid fact has been supported by the informant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Considering the nature of allegation, the appellants deserve regular bail as under trial prisoner, let the appellants, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case. However, with condition that appellants would file undertaking that in future they would not call to the informant; otherwise their bail-bond would be cancelled.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T