Jharkhand High Court
Aarti Sharma @ Arti Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.18 of 2021
---
Aarti Sharma @ Arti Sharma ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jorawar Ram ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P.
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Adv.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel
for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and
video qualities are good.
---
07/13.08.2021: The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State and Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2.
3. The criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order
dated 17.10.2020 in Misc. Cri. Application No.301 of 2020 in SC/ST
Case No.8A of 2020 (arising out of Palamau SC/ST P.S. Case No.13 of
2018) passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at
Daltongaj, registered for the offence u/s Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506
of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)(x)(xv)(s)(g) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that, in spite of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, making reference to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020)10 SCC 710 in
the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttrakhand & Anr is
maintainable. There is dispute between the parties for a piece of land
being Khata No.132 Plot Nos.1091 and 1092 having 66 decimal of land
situated in village Sahpur, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.-Palamau. For the said
land there was a title suit being Title Suit No.26 of 2001 pending
between the parties and the trial court has given decree in favour of the
present appellant and it has been reversed in the first appeal. Second
Appeal being S.A. No.72 of 2012 has been admitted by framing
substantial question of law vide order dated 09.07.2019 by the Second
Appellate Court. It has further been submitted that for the same piece of
land, criminal case has been lodged making the same allegation in which
the appellant has been acquitted by the trial court. The judgment of the
trial court passed in Comp. Case No.1062 of 2012/TR No.657 of 2020
and in SC/ST Case No.04 of 2016 have been annexed.
5. On the strength of above cases, it has been submitted that the
alleged victim, who is a political person, is trying to create extra pressure
by misusing the provision of SC/ST Act to defeat the civil rights of the
appellant. Since there is civil disputes between the parties and the
appellant is also fighting for civil rights over a piece of land and as such,
the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not applicable as has been
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra).
On the above facts, it has been argued that the present appeal is
maintainable and the appellant is entitled for the anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that only on the ground that
the accused has been acquitted in the earlier criminal case by the trial
court does not mean that the present case is false. Further, the civil
dispute does not mean that criminal case is not permissible. The victim
has been abused in a public view and as such the offence under Section
SC/ST Act has been committed and the Bar under Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act is applicable and the present anticipatory bail is not
maintainable.
7. Having regard to the learned counsel for parties and on
perusing the records, it appears that there is various litigations i.e. Civil
and Criminal both between the parties. The appellants were acquitted in
criminal cases which has been annexed as Annexure-2. Further, it
appears that for the same piece of land as mentioned in the FIR itself, the
second appeal is pending before this Court as the same has been
admitted after framing of the substantial question of law. The entire facts
suggest that there a bona fide land dispute between the parties over a
piece of land and as such, making of false allegation for creating extra
pressure by misusing the SC/ST Act cannot be ruled out. The SC/ST
(POA) Act gives right to the members of the SC/ST community to
prosecute the perpetrator of crime, but at the same time it cannot be used
for persecution.
8. Considering the entire material on records and in view of above
discussion, this court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to
the appellants above named. Hence, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they
shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at
Daltonganj in connection with SC/ST Case No.8A of 2020 (arising out
of Palamau SC/ST P.S. Case No.13 of 2018), subject to the conditions as
laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. and also on the condition that
the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and
also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he
will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this
case without prior permission of the court.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 17.10.2020 in Misc. Cri. Application No.301 of
2020 in SC/ST Case No.8A of 2020 (arising out of Palamau SC/ST P.S.
Case No.13 of 2018) is, hereby, set aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
