Pankaj Kumar And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

Heard Ms. Shristi Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This appeal has been filed for the following relief:

“The appellants beg to move preferred the memo of appeal before this Hon’ble Court against the order dated 6.6.2019 passed in

A.B.P. No.1148/19 by learned AJC XII â€" cum â€" Spl. Judge SC/ST (POA) Act Ranchi, arising out of Ranchi Sadar S.C/S.T. Case

No.18/2019 which is registered under Section 323, 504/ 34 I.P.C and 3(1)(r) S.C./S.T. (PA) Act, 2015 whereby and whereunder prayer for

anticipatory bail in event/apprehention of arrest, of the appellants has been rejected and now this case is pending before the learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner XII â€" cum â€" Spl. Judge S.C/S.T. (POA) Act Ranchi.â€​

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants by

referring to Section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that the F.I.R has been

filed by the maternal grandfather of the victim and the victim is above 25 years of age. So far as appellants are concerned, he submits that they are 15

and 14 years of age respectively and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel also submits that the victim and the appellants

are friends and the entire incident had taken place while they were playing. He further submits that his clients are present in the Court. The learned

counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of this case goods sense have prevailed amongst the parties and accordingly they have

filed a joint compromise petition being I.A. No.9882 of 2019. He submits that on account of this development, anticipatory bail be granted to the

present appellants.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 on the other hand does not dispute the submission of the appellants that the parties have

settled their dispute and are at peace with each other and accordingly, she submits that she has no objection if the present appellants are enlarged on

anticipatory bail. She submits that her client is also present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the State also supports the submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the victim

and the appellants are friends and the alleged incident had taken place while they were playing. Further subsequent development has taken place

between the parties and they are at peace amongst them. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as opposite party no.2 have no

objection to grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the

appellants. The appellants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon surrender or arrest and in the event of their arrest/surrender, the

learned court below is directed to enlarge the appellants on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned AJC XII â€" cum â€" Spl. Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Ranchi, in Anticipatory Bail

Petition No.1148 of 2019, arising out of Ranchi Sadar S.C./S.T. Case No.18/2019, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the

Cr.P.C with further conditions as follows:

i) The appellants would cooperate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

ii) The appellants as well as their father will submit attested copies of their Aadhar card and their phone numbers before the court below at the time of

furnishing bail bonds, which they will not change during the pendency of the case without permission of the learned court below.

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby allowed.