The Patna High Court has dismissed criminal proceedings against Bihar Minister Santosh Kumar Suman, also known as Santosh Manjhi, in a 2017 case alleging rioting, road blockages and assault on a police officer during a protest in Bodh Gaya.
The Patna High Court has recently dismissed criminal proceedings against Bihar Minister Santosh Kumar Suman, also known as Santosh Manjhi, who is the son of Union Cabinet Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi.
This decision relates to a 2017 case involving allegations of rioting, road blockages, and an assault on a police officer during a protest in Bodh Gaya.
Justice Sandeep Kumar noted that the evidence presented did not include any claims that Suman had physically assaulted anyone or engaged in violent behavior, stating that the only accusation against him was that he had addressed the gathering.
Currently, Suman serves as the Minister for Minor Irrigation and the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Bihar government.
The case originated from events on April 1, 2017, when the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Bodh Gaya police station filed a self-statement regarding significant violence during a road blockade at Domuhane Chowk in Gaya district.
The FIR indicated that police learned about the blockade and arrived at the scene to find numerous individuals burning tires, chanting slogans, and behaving inappropriately toward passers-by. Allegations stated that the crowd was armed with sticks and other weapons.
The prosecution contended that Santosh Kumar Suman was among those addressing the crowd with a loudspeaker. When government officials, including the Block Development Officer (BDO), urged the protestors to disperse, they insisted their demonstration was in response to the perceived failure to arrest a suspect in a case concerning Magadh University and demanded a medical examination for a woman.
Despite assurances from officials, the protest continued. The FIR claimed that certain individuals incited the crowd, resulting in the alleged insult of a woman wearing a burqa.
During the disorder, an SHO was reportedly assaulted multiple times and suffered injuries to his head and hand. Additionally, it was alleged that a passing tempo was attacked, damaging its glass panes.
Consequently, the police filed charges under various severe provisions, including rioting, unlawful assembly, assault on a public servant, outraging a woman’s modesty, causing grievous hurt, kidnapping, mischief, provisions of the Bihar Police Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
In February 2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gaya acknowledged the offences, prompting Suman to seek relief from the High Court to quash the proceedings.
Suman’s legal representatives argued that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalries and reiterated that the sole allegation against him was his act of addressing the crowd. They emphasized that there were no claims of him assaulting anyone, instigating violence, or damaging property.
While opposing Suman’s petition, the State conceded that the FIR merely stated that he was addressing the gathering and did not attribute any specific acts of violence or assault to him.
Upon reviewing the FIR and listening to both sides, the High Court concluded that the prosecution’s case, regardless of how it was interpreted, did not establish any wrongdoing on Suman’s part. The Court explained that the claims of assault and misbehavior pertained to other accused individuals, not Suman himself.
The Court remarked that merely addressing a group, without any evidence of incitement or involvement in violent acts, could not warrant criminal prosecution for such serious charges.
A thorough examination of the FIR indicated no allegations that Suman had assaulted the SHO or anyone else, nor that he had played any active role in the incidents described.
In light of this, the High Court determined that continuing the criminal proceedings against Suman would constitute an abuse of legal process. As a result, it upheld Suman’s petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, explicitly stating that this ruling applied only to him and not to the other accused.
Suman was represented by advocates Dinu Kumar, Ritika Rani, and Vardhan Mangalam, while the State was represented by advocate Jharkhandi Upadhyay.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Suman vs. State of Bihar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
