Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1765 (JHR)

Kalim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2019-10-17

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal arises out of order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, in A.B.P. No. 677 of 2019 in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 429 of 2018, SC/ST Case No. 15/19 under Section 147, 341, 323, 379, 427, 385 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Giridih. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the appellants were still on police bail as was apparent from the case diary. He submits that the learned court below has held that anticipatory bail itself was not maintainable on the ground that charge sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sections 147, 341, 323, 427, 385 of the Indian Penal Code and the court took cognizance under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379, 427, 385 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 04.04.2019. The anticipatory bail filed by the appellants has been rejected by referring to Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1989 and the appellants were directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel submits that as the appellants were granted police bail and the bail bond was not cancelled, therefore the learned court below was not justified in directing the appellants to surrender and rejecting the anticipatory bail. He further submits that as the appellants were still on police bail therefore anticipatory bail itself was not maintainable and this has been decided by this court in A.B.A. No. 3001 of 2018 and other analogous cases vide order dated 18.06.2018. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the parties are present in the court and they have filed joint compromise petition before this court. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and they have filed joint compromise petition before this court. 5. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the parties are present in the court and they have filed joint compromise petition before this court. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and they have filed joint compromise petition before this court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the appellants are on police bail and the bail bond of the appellants was never cancelled by the learned court below, this court is of the considered view that anticipatory bail of the appellants was not maintainable. 6. From the judgment passed by this court in A.B.A. No. 3001 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 this court finds that the Hon’ble Judge has relied upon the judgment passed in Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 731 (Bishnudeo Sahu Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) wherein it has been held that once the police bail has been granted and the bail bond has been executed, at later stage, if the offence is treated as non-bailable, the applicant cannot file his application for grant of anticipatory bail. The only remedy available to him is to surrender before the concerned court. The concerned court will grant him bail without taking into custody, considering his conduct while in police bail and also that he has not misused the privilege of bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances this court finds that the anticipatory bail filed by the appellants before the learned court below was not maintainable. However, the appellants are directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from today and the concerned court will grant them bail considering their conduct while on police bail also as to whether they have misused the privilege of bail or not. The appellants would also give an undertaking that they shall be cooperative in the proceedings and remain physically present as and when their presence is required by the court. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.