Ramanujan Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1468 of 2017

Ramanujan Kumar Singh @ Ramu …… Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Khusbu Kumari …… Respondents
———

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

———

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
For the respondent No.2 : Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate
———

04/Dated: 13/11/2017

Sole appellant has preferred an application under Section 14 A(2) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Jamshedpur in A.B.P No. 765 of
2017, which arises out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2017, corresponding
to G.R. No. 805 of 2017 registered under Section 376/420/313/504/506 of
the I.P.C and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
lodged on the basis of written report of prosecutrix-A, whereby and
whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Jamshedpur has
rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant on the ground that in view of
the mandate of Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the instant
anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.

On 19.08.2017, notices were issued to respondent No.2 and case
diary was called for.

On 07.11.2017, both the parties were present and explored the
possibility of rehabilitation scheme for the respondent No.2.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case under
Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out
against the appellant as from the perusal of the written report given by
the respondent No.2 nowhere it has been stated that the appellant had
any knowledge that the respondent No.2 belongs to the scheduled castes.
In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a case reported in 2002
SCC Del 571 ILR (2002) 2 Del 237: (2002) 64 DRJ 29 (DB) : (2002)
99 DLT 167 (DB) which reads as under:-

(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities )Act, 1989-To constitute offence, person making
alleged derogatory utterance must know that person whom he
intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate
him in name of caste-Derogatory utterance made in
generalised terms in a public gathering, even in name of caste
not attract offence under Section 3(1)(x) unless directed
against an individual member of cast/Tribe and only when
person making in knew that victim belonged to SC or ST- Sub
Section 3(1)(xi) essentially required that person using force or
assaulting a women of SC/ST must know that she belonged to
that caste/tribe-Factual foundation for attracting offence
under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) lacking-FIR to extent of under
Section 3 quashed.

Learned counsel for appellant further relied on judgment in the
case of W.P(CRL) No. 3083 of 2016 reported in 2017 SCC Online
Del 8942. It is further submitted that admittedly the appellant was in
relationship with the respondent No.2 for long time and when it broke
down, this case has been lodged. It is further submitted that in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, respondent
No.2/victim has stated that there is love relationship between the parties
for last seven years and further she is not interested to pursue the matter
further. It is also submitted that no material on record for mis-carriage or
abortion and personal relationship. It is also submitted that appellant is
ready to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 by way of ad-interim
compensation. It is also submitted that appellant is working as Computer
Operator in Anti Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur and falsely implicated in
this case.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the
respondent No.2 was recorded under duress. Appellant has admitted his
relationship with respondent No.2. Thereafter appellant has solemnised
marriage with another woman. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars
anticipatory bail to the appellant and hence appellant does not deserve
the bail.

Learned A.P.P has produced the case diary.

From perusal of case diary of para 23, it appears that I.O has
recorded the statement of Gautmi Kumari. She has stated the fact that
there is some relationship with the respondent No.2.

Further in para 31, I.O has recorded the statement of Renuka
Chaudhary, who is the Chief Medical Officer of Apex Hospital. She could
not find entry register for treatment of respondent No.2. Further I.O has
recorded the statement Binod Kumar Chaudhary. He has stated that he is
brother-in-law of the appellant who has stated that presently posted in
Chatra but while he was posted in Jamshedpur, his wife had never stated
about the relationship of respondent No.2. only after 08.03.2017,
Harendra Singh has told that he wants to meet with him for relationship
but they do not want to pursue the litigation.

Further para 40, statement of Amita Kumari, she has stated that
while the appellant was coming out of his office at Jublee park fight took
place between appellant and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has
taken the launch box, paper and dire consequences.

Further para 49 of the case diary that medical examination report
of the victim has filed and age of the prosecutrix has been assessed 32
years and no sign of rape has been found. Further I.O has recorded
report of Renuka that respondent No.2 was neither treated nor abortion
in Apex Hospital.

Taking all these aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned
order is set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed.

The above named appellant is directed to surrender in the Court
below on or before 04.12.2017 and in the event of his arrest or surrender,
the Court below shall enlarge the above named appellant on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.
10 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 805 of 2017, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Further appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- before the
learned Special Judge of S.C/S.T. Case, Jamshedpur on the date of
surrender under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation scheme, thereafter
his bail bond shall be accepted.

Further, after deposition of the amount, the Special Judge shall
issue notice to the respondent No.2 and on her appearance and after
verification, the trial Court shall release the aforesaid amount to the
respondent. No.2.

Further appellant is directed to not to make any contact, either face
to face or through social media and not to try to influence or gain over
the witnesses of the informant during trial. If he is found in indulging
such activities, it shall be open to the respondent. No.2 to file an
application for cancellation of bail of the appellant.

Since the appellant is working as Computer Operator in Anti
Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur it is very sensitive post, let a copy of the
order be sent to the Additional Director General of Anti Corruption
Bureau, Jharkhand and Superintendent of Police of Anti Corruption
Bureau, Jamshedpur who will ensure that appellant has been transferred
to another post.

Further aforesaid officer is directed to submit a report within
twenty weeks as to what action has been taken against the appellant.

Let a copy of the order be sent to the court below and also
communicated to the Additional Director General of Anti Corruption
Bureau, Jharkhand and Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Jamshedpur for compliance of the order through learned A.P.P and
learned Nodle Officer copy to sending on them.

List this case under the heading for orders after twenty weeks.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Satayendra/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *