{"id":94698,"date":"2011-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-13T21:18:31","modified_gmt":"2015-10-13T15:48:31","slug":"ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011<\/div>\n
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI\n                            Criminal M.P. No.267 of 2011\n\nAjay Gobind Prasad--        --     --      --     --      ---   --     --Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1. State of Jharkhand\n2. Anuj Kashyap--    --     --     --      --     -- --   --    --Opposite Parties\n\n       CORAM         :      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA\n\nFor the Petitioner   : M\/s. Nityanand Prasad & Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocates\nFor the State        : Mr. V.S. Jha, A.P.P.\n                                   -----\n\nReserved on: 13-5-2011                             Pronounced on: 29 - 06-2011\n\n\n\nD.K. Sinha, J.       The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court\n              under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his\n              entire criminal proceedings, arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.377\/04,\n              corresponding to G.R. No.2117\/04, including the FIR.\n                     2.     Criminal law was set in motion on the written report\n              presented by the informant-opposite party No.2 wherein who narrated that\n              his wife Sarita Kujur, having her Account No.0001190010729 C.I.P, Patra\n              Toli, Kanke, Ranchi,      had sent a written complaint to the Chief General\n              Manager, Patna against the Upper Bazar Branch of the State Bank of\n              India, Ranchi on 5.5.2004. On 6.5.2004 when his wife Sarita Kujur went to\n              the Upper Bazar Branch of State Bank of India, she was asked by the\n              counter clerk to visit the chamber of the Bank Manager. The informant\n              admitted that a loan certificate was granted by the Manager to him earlier\n              in favour of the Oil India Corporation. The informant further narrated that\n              there were six persons in that chamber, including the Bank Manager Sri\n              A.K. Basant and one Sri Ajay Gobind Prasad (petitioner herein), who used\n              filthy language by addressing her \"Tribe\" and they asked her by putting\n              pressure to write a compromise letter and accordingly, she was compelled\n              to write, being a tribal woman alone in the chamber, in absence of any\n              woman of any organization or any woman officer of the Bank, which\n              constituted an offence. At that time, his wife Sarita Kujur was ill,\n              undergoing treatment under the care of Dr. Sanjay Kumar and the\n              accused persons compelled her to write a compromise letter. Explaining\n              the delay in lodging the FIR, the informant stated that he belonged to\n              Rourkela where he was working in Doordarshan and that there was\n              marriage of his sister-in-law on 9.5.2004 and thereafter, his daughter fell ill\n              and brought under care and treatment of Dr. Ajay Ghosh. The informant\n              requested to seize the impugned letter, case withdrawal ledger register as\n also the computer harddisc so that the evidence may not be tampered and\nfurther requested to take appropriate step in the interest of social justice\nagainst the tribal woman. Copies of the letter were sent to the several\nauthorities. A case was registered under Sections 342\/506 of the Indian\nPenal Code as also under Sections 7\/8\/9 of the Scheduled Castes and the\nScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, giving rise to\nKotwali P.S. Case No.377\/04 on 20.7.2004.\n       3.     It would be evident from the FIR, the learned counsel Mr.\nPrasad by initiating his argument submitted, that the informant wanted\nsocial justice for his wife. Yet, police registered a case under Sections\n7\/8\/9<\/pre>\n
 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
\nAtrocities) Act, ignoring that such Sections in the Special Act were not the
\noffences at all. An explanation was called for from Sri A.K. Basant, the
\nthen Chief Manager, Upper Bazar Branch of State Bank of India, Ranchi
\nby the Dy.S.P., Ranchi vide Memo No.817 dated 15.3.2010 after lapse of
\nsix years and the explanation was given on 23.3.2010 stating all the facts.
\nThe case was lodged after 2 \u00bd months of the alleged occurrence without
\nany plausible explanation with mala fide intention and the police registered
\nthe case without verifying the veracity of the allegation made. In the facts
\nand circumstances, therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioner
\nwould be deemed to be an abuse of the process of law as Sections 7\/8 of
\nthe Special Act deal with setting up of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes Protection Cell and Section 9 of the Act deals with nomination of
\nNodal Officer. None of the above Sections of the Special Act attracted
\npenal offences and therefore, the case was registered without application
\nof mind. It is nowhere alleged that the petitioner and others had humiliated
\nthe wife of the informant and that she was treated so because of her being
\na member of Scheduled Tribe. The prosecution of the petitioner under
\nrelevant Section of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
\n(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 otherwise was also not maintainable
\nas it was nowhere alleged by the informant husband that the petitioner
\naccused was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally
\nintimidated her with intent to humiliate her.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     The learned counsel Mr. Prasad relied on the decision of the
\nSupreme Court. In Gorige Pentaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh and
\nothers, reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531, the Supreme
\nCourt held,
\n              “6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in
\n       the entire complaint is that on 27-5-2004, the appellant abused
\n       them with the name of their caste. According to the basic
\n       ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought
\n       to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member
\n       of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he
\n       (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the
\n       accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In
\n      the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-
\n      accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
\n      Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with
\n      intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view.
\n      When the basic ingredients of the offence are raising in the
\n      complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to
\n      compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial
\n      would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.”\n<\/p>\n
      5.     The learned counsel further submitted that the case was
\nlodged by the informant with oblique purpose who did not allow his wife to
\ncome forward. Admittedly, a written complaint was sent by her to the Chief
\nGeneral Manager, State Bank of India, Patna through the General
\nManager,    State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi imputing some
\nallegations against the petitioner that when she could not draw the amount
\nfrom her ATM card, she went to the Upper Bazar Branch of State Bank of
\nIndia on 10.4.2004 and discussed with the petitioner, he assured that all
\nproblems would be set at right within half an hour and her ATM card
\nwould start working. After one hour, the ATM rejected her ATM card with
\nthe remarks in the slip “Response Code 055 invalid trans or account”. She
\nwas having sufficient balance in her account but even then her ATM card
\ndid not work, to which the petitioner explained, being the officer of the
\nBank, that her account since was not in operation for the last one year, so
\nthe ATM did not accept the ATM card and she was requested to come on
\nMonday for manual transaction for withdrawal of the cash as the working
\nhours of the Bank was over. On Monday i.e. on 12.4.2004, she visited the
\nBank and withdrew cash from her account by manual transaction. She
\nwas again assured by the petitioner that her ATM card would start working
\nwithin half an hour but the same could not be activated much beyond the
\nperiod assured by him and the ATM card was again rejected with the
\nendorsement “054 contact Bank”. She complained that she was found
\nherself harassed by the Bank staff, mentally, economically, and financially
\nand she criticised the mode of working of that Branch without imputing any
\nother allegation against the petitioner. Complaint was sent on 5.5.2004
\nwhich was brought to the notice of Chief General Manager. The learned
\ncounsel further attracted the attention that it was nowhere alleged in the
\nsaid complaint that the petitioner had extended torture to Sarita Kujur or
\nthe petitioner had in any manner misbehaved her. The petitioner tried to
\nexplain that only on account of non operation of the savings account, for
\nlong, the ATM was not accepting the card. A solvency certificate was
\nissued by the petitioner to Sarita Kujur as she was holding her Bank
\nAccount with the deposit of Rs.34,593.31\/-. On the complaint made by
\nSarita Kujur, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India replied, “The Branch
\nwas linked with all India networking ATM in early 2004, the system was
\n new to us, further, your account was dormant which created all the
\nproblems”. The Chief Manager further stated and expressed hope that she
\nmight be enjoying the facility perfectly and at the same time, regretted for
\nthe inconvenience caused to her with the assurance of the best banking
\nservices in the future. This letter was sent to Sarita Kujur by registered
\npost on 14th July, 2004 itself but Sarita Kujur came forward by imputing
\nany kind of allegation. The allegation as levelled by the informant was
\ngeneral and omnibus and not specific against the petitioner except he was
\npresent in the chamber of the Branch Manager.\n<\/p>\n
       6.       The learned counsel further pointed out that Sarita Kujur did
\nnot come forward alleging by filing case that she was humiliated within the
\npublic view so as to attract offence and therefore, criminal prosecution of
\nthe petitioner would amount to miscarriage of justice as no offence much
\nless alleged under Sections 7\/8\/9 of the Scheduled Castes and the
\nScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 nor under Section
\n342 of the Indian Penal Code is made out to proceed against him.\n<\/p>\n
       7.       Reliance has been placed upon an earlier decision of the
\nApex Court. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman versus State of
\nMaharashtra, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 719, the Apex Court had held
\nmuch earlier,
\n              “In the instant case, there is no evidence at all to the
\n       effect that the accused committed the offence alleged against
\n       him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a
\n       Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the
\n       provisions of S.3(2)(v) Act, the sine qua non is that the victim
\n       should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a
\n       Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code is
\n       committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs
\n       to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of
\n       such ingredients, no offence under S.3(2)(v) Act arises.”\n<\/p>\n
       8.       Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the facts of the
\ncase as presented by the informant did not entail that an offence under
\nSections 342\/506 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted against the
\npetitioner so as to call for his criminal proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
       9.       In spite of notice sent to the informant-opposite party No.2,
\nhe did not chose to appear. The State-opposite party since filed the
\ncounter-affidavit, I find that the counter-affidavit of the informant in the
\npolice case is not of much relevance.\n<\/p>\n
       10.      State-opposite party in its counter-affidavit stated that there
\nwas a prima facie case under Sections 342\/506 of the Indian Penal Code
\nas also under Sections 3\/4 read with Sections 7\/8\/9 of the Scheduled
\nCastes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the
\naccused who addressed Sarita Kujur an “Adivasi” in abusive words by
\nwrongfully confining her in the chamber of the Branch Manager and asking
\n her to sign on a compromise paper. It was further stated that there was
\nno evidence of vengeance and malice for institution of a case against the
\npetitioner and others. In the FIR, it was mentioned that on the date of
\noccurrence wife of the informant was abused in the chamber of the
\nManager, Upper Bazar Branch of the State Bank of India and the
\npetitioner participated in the alleged offence as he was present in the
\nchamber and therefore, petitioner was also liable under Section 8 of the
\nScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
       11.   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I
\nfind that the informant is not the victim and he was also not the eye-
\nwitness of the occurrence. He derived information whatever about the
\nalleged occurrence may be from his wife, who did not prefer to lodge any
\ncase before the police or before the Court. I find substance in the
\nargument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that police officer
\nwithout application of mind and appreciation of law, instituted the case
\nunder Sections 7\/8\/9 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
\n(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which are not relevant for not being the
\npenal Sections. I further find that the informant failed to impute that his
\nwife was abused not because she was a tribal woman and the petitioner
\nwas not a member of Scheduled Tribe and the petitioner intentionally
\ninsulted her within public view. Therefore, I find that no part of the
\noccurrence alleged did take place so as to attract relevant offences under
\nSection 3(1)(x) of the    Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
\n(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.     The petitioner has brought the
\ncomplaint petition on the record (Page-15), which was addressed to the
\nChief General Manager by       Sarita Kujur, wherein she expressed her
\nanguish about the mode of working as her ATM card could not be
\nactivated and that no personal allegation was made against the petitioner
\nor the Manager of the Bank, rather it was the general allegation, which
\nwas replied by the Chief Manager (Page-19) acknowledging the receipt of
\nher complaint and regretting for the inconvenience caused to her with the
\nassurance of the best banking services in the future. I find from perusal of
\nthe said complaint that Sarita Kujur nowhere alleged that the petitioner
\nabused by addressing her ‘tribal woman’ or otherwise used defamatory
\nwords after confining her in the chamber. Even no plausible explanation
\ncould be given by the informant about inordinate delay of 2 \u00bd months’ in
\nlodging the FIR. I find from the written report that the alleged occurrence
\ntook place in the chamber of the Manager where six persons were
\npresent, including the Manager and the petitioner and not in the public
\nview. Such letter of compromise alleged to be signed by Sarita Kujur could
\nnot be procured during investigation in the case diary and the counter-\n<\/p>\n
               affidavit is also silent about such letter. Above all, the informant of the
\n              case failed to give a reasonable explanation as to why not Sarita Kujur
\n              herself instituted the case before the police, though she frequently visited
\n              Ranchi and operated her account in the Upper Bazar Branch of the State
\n              Bank of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     12.    In Asmathunnisa versus State of A.P., reported in AIR 2011
\n              SC (Criminal) 1016, the Apex Court held,
\n                            “27 .In a recent decision in M. Mohan v. The State, 2011
\n                     (3) SCALE 78: (AIR 2011 SC 1238) this Court again had an
\n                     occasion to consider the case of similar nature and this court
\n                     held that if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are accepted
\n                     as correct in its entirety and even then the complaint does not
\n                     disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, in such a case
\n                     the High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions
\n                     are quashed under its inherent powers under section 482 of the
\n                     Cr.P.C.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     13.       I find that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in the
\n              facts and circumstances cannot be sustained under law, which has been
\n              brought about maliciously by the informant for a trifling matter since the
\n              ATM card of his wife Sarita Kujur could not be activated for the reason
\n              that the account of Sarita Kujur was not in operation for a long time. There
\n              is no specific allegation against the petitioner except that he was present
\n              in the chamber of the Manager and in her letter, addressed to the Chief
\n              General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna, she communicated her
\n              grievance because her ATM card could not be activated                    and the
\n              petitioner had explained the reason and facilitated her to withdraw her
\n              money by manual operation. Otherwise on the face of allegation made by
\n              the informant in his written report also, no prima facie offence is made out
\n              against the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     14.    For the reasons stated above and relying upon the
\n              propositions of law referred to hereinabove the prosecution of the
\n              petitioner cannot be sustained under law and accordingly, the same is
\n              quashed as against the petitioner Ajay Gobind Prasad in Kotwali P.S.
\n              Case No.377\/04, corresponding to G.R. No.2117\/04, pending before the
\n              CJM, Ranchi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     15.    This petition is accordingly allowed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                    (D.K. Sinha, J.)
\nS.B.\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal M.P. No.267 of 2011 Ajay Gobind Prasad– — — — — — — –Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Anuj Kashyap– — — — — — — — –Opposite Parties CORAM : […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-13T15:48:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-13T15:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2243,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-13T15:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-13T15:48:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-13T15:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011"},"wordCount":2243,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011","name":"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-13T15:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-gobind-prasad-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-29-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajay Gobind Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94698","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}