High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 04 JH CK 0050

Binod Kumar Singh & Ors vs Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University & Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 27 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anant Bijay Singh
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
268 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 278 words
1.

Appellants have preferred an application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in A.B.P. No. 52 of 2017, which arises out of Mandu (West Bokaro) P.S. Case No. 122 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 428 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 504, 387, 353, 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the learned court below has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants.

2.

It appears that case diary was called for, which has been received. From perusal of para-62 of the case diary, it appears that case under Section 341, 504, 387, 34 of the I.P.C. is found to be true, but case under Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not found to be true and only Section 387 of the I.P.C. is non-bailable.

3.

Be that as it may, I am inclined to admit the appellants on bail. The above named appellants are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named appellants on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 122 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 428 of 2016.

4.

Appeal is allowed.