IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1468 of 2017 Ramanujan Kumar Singh @ Ramu …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Khusbu Kumari …… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P For the respondent No.2 : Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate --------- 04/Dated:
13. 11/2017 Sole appellant has preferred an application under Section 14 A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Jamshedpur in A.B.P No. 765 of 2017, which arises out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 805 of 2017 registered under Section 376/420/313/504/506 of the I.P.C and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act lodged on the basis of written report of prosecutrix-A, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Jamshedpur has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant on the ground that in view of the mandate of Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the instant anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. On 19.08.2017, notices were issued to respondent No.2 and case diary was called for. On 07.11.2017, both the parties were present and explored the possibility of rehabilitation scheme for the respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant as from the perusal of the written report given by the respondent No.2 nowhere it has been stated that the appellant had any knowledge that the respondent No.2 belongs to the scheduled castes. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a case reported in 2002 SCC Del 571 ILR (2002) 2 Del 237: (2002) 64 DRJ29(DB) : (2002) 99 DLT167(DB) which reads as under:- (B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, 1989-To constitute offence, person making alleged derogatory utterance must know that person whom he intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate him in name of caste-Derogatory utterance made in generalised terms in a public gathering, even in name of caste not attract offence under Section 3(1)(x) unless directed against an individual member of cast/Tribe and only when person making in knew that victim belonged to SC or ST- Sub Section 3(1)(xi) essentially required that person using force or assaulting a women of SC/ST must know that she belonged to that caste/tribe-Factual foundation for attracting offence under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) lacking-FIR to extent of under Section 3 quashed. Learned counsel for appellant further relied on judgment in the case of W.P(CRL) No. 3083 of 2016 reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 8942. It is further submitted that admittedly the appellant was in relationship with the respondent No.2 for long time and when it broke down, this case has been lodged. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, respondent No.2/victim has stated that there is love relationship between the parties for last seven years and further she is not interested to pursue the matter further. It is also submitted that no material on record for mis-carriage or abortion and personal relationship. It is also submitted that appellant is ready to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 by way of ad-interim compensation. It is also submitted that appellant is working as Computer Operator in Anti Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur and falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the respondent No.2 was recorded under duress. Appellant has admitted his relationship with respondent No.2. Thereafter appellant has solemnised marriage with another woman. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail to the appellant and hence appellant does not deserve the bail. Learned A.P.P has produced the case diary. From perusal of case diary of para 23, it appears that I.O has recorded the statement of Gautmi Kumari. She has stated the fact that there is some relationship with the respondent No.2. Further in para 31, I.O has recorded the statement of Renuka Chaudhary, who is the Chief Medical Officer of Apex Hospital. She could not find entry register for treatment of respondent No.2. Further I.O has recorded the statement Binod Kumar Chaudhary. He has stated that he is brother-in-law of the appellant who has stated that presently posted in Chatra but while he was posted in Jamshedpur, his wife had never stated about the relationship of respondent No.2. only after 08.03.2017, Harendra Singh has told that he wants to meet with him for relationship but they do not want to pursue the litigation. Further para 40, statement of Amita Kumari, she has stated that while the appellant was coming out of his office at Jublee park fight took place between appellant and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has taken the launch box, paper and dire consequences. Further para 49 of the case diary that medical examination report of the victim has filed and age of the prosecutrix has been assessed 32 years and no sign of rape has been found. Further I.O has recorded report of Renuka that respondent No.2 was neither treated nor abortion in Apex Hospital. Taking all these aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed. The above named appellant is directed to surrender in the Court below on or before 04.12.2017 and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named appellant on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 805 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Further appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- before the learned Special Judge of S.C/S.T. Case, Jamshedpur on the date of surrender under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation scheme, thereafter his bail bond shall be accepted. Further, after deposition of the amount, the Special Judge shall issue notice to the respondent No.2 and on her appearance and after verification, the trial Court shall release the aforesaid amount to the respondent. No.2. Further appellant is directed to not to make any contact, either face to face or through social media and not to try to influence or gain over the witnesses of the informant during trial. If he is found in indulging such activities, it shall be open to the respondent. No.2 to file an application for cancellation of bail of the appellant. Since the appellant is working as Computer Operator in Anti Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur it is very sensitive post, let a copy of the order be sent to the Additional Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand and Superintendent of Police of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur who will ensure that appellant has been transferred to another post. Further aforesaid officer is directed to submit a report within twenty weeks as to what action has been taken against the appellant. Let a copy of the order be sent to the court below and also communicated to the Additional Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand and Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur for compliance of the order through learned A.P.P and learned Nodle Officer copy to sending on them. List this case under the heading for orders after twenty weeks. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satayendra/