Shrawan Sah vs State Of Bihar

A supplementary affidavit to the effect that the respondent no.2 and his brother, who received the notice, are in jointness has been filed on behalf of the appellant.

In view of the averments made in the supplementary affidavit, the service of notice is accepted as valid.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.PP for the State.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

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 vide order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Saran at Chapra, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 43 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per prosecution case, the appellant and other co-accused persons, variously armed with lathi, farsa, spade, daab, rod and pistol, abused and assaulted the informant and his family members. On assault by co-accused persons, the uncle of the informant was seriously injured and later on he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The allegation against this appellant and co-accused Adalat Mahto and Brajesh Mahto is that they assaulted one Sikandar Kumar Ram with farsa.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics as is apparent from the FIR. The allegations are mostly general and omnibus against the appellant and other accused persons. The allegation of assault by farsa on Sikandar Ram is on three persons including this appellant and other allegations are completely general and omnibus. There is also a counter version of the occurrence in which the informant is an accused and one Santosh Kumar Sah has received head injury and needed 12 stitches. So it is a case of free fight between two groups. The learned counsel further submits that a number of co-accused have been granted bail/anticipatory bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 4373 of 2021, 3829 of 2021, 4317 of 2021 and 3771 of 2021, respectively. The appellant is in custody since 25.09.2022 and the charge sheet has been submitted.

Learned Spl.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant.

Perused the records.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the general and omnibus nature of allegation against the appellant and further considering the grant of bail/anticipatory bail to the co-accused and also considering the submission of charge sheet along with his period of custody, the appellant above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge--cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Saran at Chapra, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 43 of 2021, 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 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.

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