IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1676 of 2018
1. Raushan Kumar @ Roshan Prasad
2. Janmjay Prasad
3. Sujit Prasad @ Sujit Kumar
4. Roshan Prasad @ Roshan Kumar Gupta
5. Ashish Prasad @ Ashish Kumar Gupta
6. Deepak Prasad
7. Ajit Prasad @ Mundi Prasad @ Ajit Kumar
8. Rahul Prasad @ Rahul Kumar Gupta
9. Vikash Prasad
10. Ranjit Prasad @ Ranjeet Kumar … … Appellants
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Santosh Kumar Paswan … … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 4, Advocate
07/04.04.2019 The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants – Rishi Prasad, Tuntun Prasad @ Puntun Prasad @ Prince
Kumar Gupta and Ravi Prasad @ Ravi Shankar Prasad have already
been apprehended by the police in connection with the present case
and, therefore, he may be permitted to delete their names from the
cause title of the present criminal appeal.
Permission is accorded.
The learned counsel for the appellants is directed to carry
out the amendment in the cause title of the appeal in course of the
The present appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 03.12.2018 passed in A.B.P. No. 273 of 2018 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with Manika P.S.
Case No. 90 of 2018 for the offences registered under Sections
147/323/325/504/354 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby
the learned court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail of
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the
instance of the informant/respondent no. 2 and have not committed
any offence as alleged. In course of investigation, the statement of
independent witnesses as recorded in paragraph nos. 45, 46, 47 and
48 of the case diary would suggest that in fact, the respondent no. 2
and his brother Anand Kumar Paswan initiated the dispute one day
prior to the alleged occurrence by insisting that they would sit on the
stage constructed for the purpose of organizing a musical programme
on the occasion of Durga puja festival. It is further submitted that
except Section 354 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, all other
offences are bailable in nature. Since the allegations made against all
accused persons including the appellants are general in nature, they
may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the
appellants on anticipatory bail. Hence, the impugned order dated
03.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Latehar in A.B.P. No. 273 of 2018 is hereby set-aside.
Accordingly, the appellants above named, in the event of
their arrest/surrender within 21 days from today before the court
below, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, on their
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, in connection with
Manika P.S. Case No. 90 of 2018.
The present criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)