Jharkhand Sessions Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Assaulting & Forcing A Muslim Man To Chant 'Jai Shri Ram'

Last Tuesday, a Sessions Court in Jharkhand's Dhanbad district granted bail to two men accused of assaulting a mentally ill Muslim man and forcing him to chant 'Jai Shri Ram.'

It is alleged that the accused are associated with the Bhartiya Janta Party. The matter was posted before Additional Sessions Judge Shwaymbhu.

In the prosecution's case, the victim, informant's elder brother, was crossing a protest program near Gandhi's statute when the accused persons, in view of the victim's community, assaulted him, forced him to lick his sputum, and forced him to chant the slogan of Jai Shree Ram, resulting in injuries.

Through Advocates Shahnawaz Mallik and A.K. Tiwari, the defense seeking bail argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case. They challenge the informant's complaint noting it to be 'fabricated, concocted and afterthought' done with the motive of being forwarded by the opposition party. They, in turn, alleged that the said victim used filthy words against God Sri Ram and senior BJP party officials. They submitted that the petitioners have been roped in this case because of political rivalry.

The alleged charges under Section 143 (unlawful assembly), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 328 (Causing hurt by means of poison, etc.), 307 (Attempt to Murder), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, were refuted in substance by the defence counsel. For Sections 143 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, it was submitted that they are bailable and compoundable.

Section 153A of the IPC requires sanction for its prosecution, which the Investigation Officer has not applied to date. On the charges under Section 328 of the IPC, it was submitted that the forceful licking of the 'sputum' as alleged does not come under the definition of either poison or stupefying or intoxicating drug.

It was also submitted that the nature of the injury vide injury report is simple in nature, and thus no offence as alleged under Section 307 of IPC is made out. They also questioned the veracity of the case diary recording the witnesses, as they happen to belong to the rival political party. 

The defence questioned the very presence of the accused at the place of verification as even the identification of the petitioners by him is without any basis and it further shows that they are politically motivated. 

It was also informed that this case had been amicably compromised between both the parties with the intervention of the well-wishers and relatives of the parties, hence a compromise petition has been filed herewith.

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, the Court enlarged the accused on bail, noting: (a) the nature of the offence alleged; (b) the injury report; and (c) the factum of no objection on bail from the other side and the period of custody.

Earlier, the bail was denied by Chief Judicial Magistrate Sanjay Kumar Singh.

Case Title: Sanjay Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand and a connected matter

Click Here to Download The Order

Read The Order