Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 356 (JHR)

Trilochan Goswami v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State, assisted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. The appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2018, passed in A.B.P. No. 962 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, pertaining to rejection of the Anticipatory bail, have filed the instant appeal in connection with Birsanagar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 6 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1675 of 2016 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. The prosecution case, as per the written report, filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Officer-in-charge, Birsa Nagar Police Station that on 06.06.2016 at about 10 o’clock in the night, the informant along with family members were having dinner, in the meantime, the appellants alongwith 20 persons, suddenly came there and started abusing by their caste name. They also indulged in assaulting the female members and others, as a result of which, Moni Devi, aged about 50 years and Jagdish Das, aged about 26 years received serious injuries on their head. Basing on the said F.I.R., the criminal act was set into motion. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation made in the First Information Report are general and omnibus and the respondent no. 2/the informant has not stated anything against the appellants as to which caste, name has been taken by them, therefore, the case under Section Sections 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is not made out against the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation as to that the appellants were armed with any weapon, therefore, no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out against the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature due to hard and blunt substance. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State and the Respondent No.2/informant have strongly objected for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature due to hard and blunt substance. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State and the Respondent No.2/informant have strongly objected for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State as well as the Respondent No.2 submitted that the appellants have lodged false counter case under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant and other family members to frustrate the instant case and after investigation, the Police has dropped Section 354 of I.P.C. against the informant and others and submitted final form on 30.06.2016 as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 28.11.2018, it transpires that on the basis of the written report, statement of witnesses and the injury sustained by Moni Devi, Jagdish Das that they received injury on their head and other parts of the body and the Doctor also opined that opinion has been kept reserved for some injuries and injuries have been caused by hard and blunt substance with sharp-cutting weapon. On perusal of the statements in the case diary, it appears that there are materials supporting the allegations against the appellants and the factum of entering into the house of the informant, having stones and bricks in their hands, have surfaced during course of investigation. 7. Regard being had to the written report, statement of witnesses and the injury report, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.11.2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, I, Jamshedpur passed in A.B.P. No. 962 of 2018. 8. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed.