BHUBNESHWAR PODDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2019-12-53
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on December 04,2019

Bhubneshwar Poddar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
(2.) This appeal has been filed for the following relief: "The present memo of criminal appeal is being filed on behalf of the appellants against the impugned order dated 19-06-2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge - I, Deoghar, in A. B. P. No. 579 of 2019, in connection with S. C. /S. T Case No. 98/2017, registered under Section 323 , 504 I. P. C. and Section 3 (1)(s) of S. C. / S. T. Act , whereby and where under, the learned Additional District Judge - I, Deoghar, was pleased to reject the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants, and now the case is pending in the court of Additional District Judge - I, Deoghar. "
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that earlier one case being S. C. /S. T. Case No. 98 of 2017 arising out of Devipur P. S. Case No. 44 of 2017 was filed by the complainant under Section 341 , 323 , 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (s) of S. C. and S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as aforesaid Act of 1989). He submits that after investigation of the case, final form was submitted and the complainant was issued notice, pursuant to which, the complainant filed protest petition on 23. 11. 2017 which was numbered as Protest cum S. C. & S. T. Case No. 68 of 2018. The learned counsel submits that the present case is a case of malicious prosecution, in as much as, the witnesses as well as the complainant of the present case are accused in the case filed by the present appellants and/or their family members. For this, he refers to a proceeding under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which was instituted between the parties and numbered as Cr. Misc. Case No. 635/16 and ultimately the said case was dropped vide order dated 15. 04. 2017 as the period was already over. He further submits that one F. I. R was also registered by the present appellants against the informant of the present case in which the witnesses are the accused. He further submits that all the witnesses of the present case are interested witnesses.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.