Prayag Pandit @ Prayag Pandit Vidyarthi And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

Heard Mr. R.R. Ravidas, counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

Heard Mr. Birendra Burman, counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in ABP No. 1266

of 2018 whereby prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 48 of 2017 registered

under Sections 147,323,379,427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, now

pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Giridih.

Counsel submits that the learned court below by the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 has rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellants who are

accused no. 1, 7 to 10 before the learned court below not only on merits but also on the ground that the anticipatory bail itself is not maintainable in

view of bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel submits that the

allegation levelled against the appellants is omnibus and the co-accused namely Shiv Narayan Pandit, Babulal Pandit, Munilal Pandit, Bundi Pandit and

Devki Pandit @ Deoki Pandit have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1461 of 2018 vide order

dated 03.12.2018.

Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that the allegation made against the appellants are serious and the

learned court below has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail as not maintainable. He further submits that cognizance has been taken under Sections

147,323,379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. So far

allegation under Indian Penal Code is concerned, Section 323 is bailable and Section 379 is non bailable.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State also supports the submissions made on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the seriousness of allegation levelled against the

appellants, this court is of the considered view that the learned court below has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellants on merits as well

as on maintainability. There being direct allegation against the appellants this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are directed to surrender before the learned court below by 20.11.2019 and the appellants are at liberty to make prayer for regular

bail before the learned court below and also make prayer for disposal of the bail application on the very same day and if such request is made, learned

court below shall consider the same and pass order in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has no serious objection to the consideration of the prayer for bail of the appellant on the same day.

It is observed that the learned court below will not prejudiced by the dismissal of the present appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with aforesaid observation.

I.A. No. 6027 of 2019 is also dismissed.

Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.