Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 77 (JHR)

Amar Nath Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2023-01-25

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2023
ORDER : Learned counsels for the parties are present. I.A. No. 11607 of 2022 2. I.A. No. 11607 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the present criminal appeal which has been preferred against the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge S.C. & S.T. Act, Sahibganj in A.B.P. No. 75 of 2022 by which the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted that the appellant is a farmer and very poor person and due to lack of money the appellant could not be able to challenge the order dated 06.06.2022 as he is residing far away in a remote place at village Hathigarh, Bans Gala, Sakrigali Ghat, Sahibganj which is at a distant of 440 km away from Ranchi, therefore it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is a genuine ground to condone the delay in filing this appeal and this appellant would suffer irreparable loss if the delay is not condoned. 4. The respondent no. 2 did not controvert this fact that the appellant has been residing in a very remote village in a district of Sahibganj which is at 440 km away from Ranchi and there is a delay of only 23 days in filing the instant appeal. 5. Having taken into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, the I.A. No. 11607 of 2022 is allowed and delay is condoned. 6. Accordingly the I.A. No. 11607 of 2022 is disposed of. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 753 of 2022 7. Further the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is a allegation against the appellant Amarnath Yadav who is the father of the main culprit of Hare Ram Yadav @ Harsh. It has further been pointed that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim informant is major and aged about 22 years. She had been willingly and voluntarily in the physical relationship with co-accused hare Ram Yadav @ Harsh under the promise of marriage and his father (appellant) has been implicated in this case only because he is the father of the main accused and there is no allegation against him. She had been willingly and voluntarily in the physical relationship with co-accused hare Ram Yadav @ Harsh under the promise of marriage and his father (appellant) has been implicated in this case only because he is the father of the main accused and there is no allegation against him. Further, it has been pointed out that the main culprit the co-accused Hare Ram has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 71 of 2021. 8. It has further been pointed out that a compromise has taken place between both the parties that due to misunderstanding this case was instituted and now the informant has categorically stated in the compromise petition filed in the court below (certified copy of which is available on record) by which it appears that only because the appellant being the father of the main accused Hare Ram Yadav @ Harsh, this case was falsely instituted by the informant against the appellant and now the entire misunderstanding and dispute has been resolved and now they are in a very cordial and good relationship and, therefore, it is categorically stated by her in affidavit instituted before the concerned court that she did not want to pursue this case. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 did not controvert this fact that the compromise has taken place and a cordial relationship has been established and, therefore, he does not oppose the prayer for anticipatory of bail to appellant. 10. Learned Addl.P.P. for the State also submitted that being the father of the co-accused he has been implicated in this case and the main allegation has been against the co-accused Hare Ram Yadav @ Harsh. Further the learned Addl.P.P. has not denied the compromise as filed by the informant before the court below. 11. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. 11. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj passed in Taljhari P.S. Case No. 54 of 2020 subject to the condition that the appellant shall submit a self-attested photocopy of of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. 12. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj is, hereby, set aside.