Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 322 (JHR)

Md. Kadir Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2021-03-19

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2021
ORDER : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. Heard Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-state. 3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.02.2020 in connection with S.C./S.T. Case No. 36 of 2019 (M.C.A. Case No. 211 of 2020) for the offences alleged under Sections 147,148,341,323,341,324,307,332,333,353,504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(R) (S) S.C./S.T. Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the appellants has been rejected in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 82 of 2019. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the bail application of the appellants has been rejected vide order dated 22.11.2019 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.801 of 2019. He further submits that in the said order an observation was made to expedite the trial taking care of mandate of Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel further submits that as per the impugned order, charges were framed under the Sections of IPC only and accordingly a report was called for from the learned court below regarding order framing charge. The learned counsel submits that it appears that aforesaid recording in the impugned order regarding framing of charge only under Indian Penal Code is not correct. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State submits that charge have already been framed and there was no progress in the trial because of COVID-19 situation but now the functioning of the court and recording of evidence before the learned court below has commenced and accordingly he submits that all endeavour will be made for expeditious trial of the appellants. He further submits that there are direct allegation against the appellants and therefore the appellants may not be enlarged on bail. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellants. 6. He further submits that there are direct allegation against the appellants and therefore the appellants may not be enlarged on bail. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellants. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that although in the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 it has been recorded that charge has been framed against the appellants under Sections 148, 341/149, 307/149, 333/149, 353/149, 504/149 of the Indian Penal Code on 07.09.2019 but from the order sheet dated 07.09.2019 as received from the learned court below it appears that charge has been framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 332, 333, 353,504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (r) & 3 (s) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Amended Act, 2015) which was explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The matter was posted on 11.11.2019 for prosecution evidence. Accordingly, this court finds that aforesaid recording in the impugned order regarding framing of charge only under some of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is not correct. It is hereby observed that the learned court below should be cautious in recording such important fact while passing the order. 7. This court further finds that so far as the appellants are concerned, their bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 22.11.2019 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 801 of 2019 considering the seriousness of the offence against the appellants. This court further finds that the learned court below has not committed any error in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of rejection of bail. Consequently, prayer for bail of the appellants is hereby rejected. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at this stage submits that some observation be made to expedite the trial. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State submits that all endeavour will be made for expeditious trial of the appellants and they will ensure production of witnesses before the learned court below. 10. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. Appeal dismissed.