Dhananjay Gond @ Bullet Gond v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4975 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2022 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan ====================================================== Dhananjay Gond @ Bullet Gond S/o Ramashish Gond Resident of VillageBarasu, Brindawan, PS.- mairwa, District - Siwan. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramashankar Manjhi S/o Late Srikishun Manjhi Resident of VillageSrinagar, PS.- mairwa, District - Siwan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-05-2024 Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make necessary correction in the petition with regard to period of custody.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.PP for the State.

3.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 order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st -cum- Special Judge, Siwan, in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2022, registered on 22.04.2022, for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 201,

2/4 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, the appellant called out the son of the informant and thereafter he became traceless. Later on, the informant came to know that the appellant and other co-accused persons committed the murder of his son.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the facts of the FIR it is apparent that the informant is not an eye-witness. The son of the informant was allegedly called out by the appellant Bullet Gond, but there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of killing of the son of the informant and the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on suspicion. It is not clear how the informant came to know about the involvement of the appellant in this case. It has also come to the knowledge during investigation that the deceased entered into the house of one Vijay Ram and tried to outrage the modesty of his sister and on shout being made, he was thrashed by several persons, who had assembled there. Learned counsel further submits that the falsity of the FIR is evident from the fact that all family members of the appellant including two ladies have been made accused in this case. During investigation it has also come that there was land dispute between the parties.

3/4 Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and the appellant is in custody since 11.09.2023. The appellant is having criminal antecedent of one case in which he has been acquitted.

6. Learned Spl.PP. opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that there appears hardly any material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and further considering the period of custody of the appellant along with submission of charge-sheet and possibility of false implication, the appellant above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st -cum-Special Judge, Siwan in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 161 of 2022, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the appellant.

(ii) The appellant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court

4/4 below.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the appellant will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.05.2024 Transmission Date 13.05.2024