Jharkhand High Court
Bhutal Modi @ Mithilesh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1245 of 2019
---
1. Bhutal Modi @ Mithilesh Prasad
2. Santosh Modi @ Santosh Kumar
3. Naresh Modi @ Naresh Prasad
4. Raj Kumar Modi
5. Savitri Devi @ Pavitri Devi
6. Sarita Devi
7. Khedan Modi @ Niranjan Prasad Modi
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Munni Devi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P.
---
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.
---
06/16.08.2021: The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State.
3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 in spite of
valid service of the notice.
4. The criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order
dated 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in A.B.P. No.1057 of 2019, in connection with Complaint Case
No.44 of 2017, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341,
504 and 354 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST (POA)
Act. The case is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA) Act, Giridih.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that a piece of land bearing Khata No.3, Plot No.124, Area 71 decimals,
at village-Baghmari, P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih is the bone of
contention between the parties. The dispute has arisen during
transplantation of paddy crops for which a criminal case being Dhanwar
P.S. Case no.239 of 2008 by one Radheyshyam Modi in which the
Respondent No.2 was convicted vide dated 29.08.2018 passed in T.R.
No.729 of 2018 (G.R. No.2595 of 2008). Again for the same piece of
land, another case has been instituted. 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 and it has been
submitted that there is a land dispute pending between the parties, for
which the entire family members have been made accused. The offence
under SC/ST (POA) Act has made for protecting the SC/ST
Communities to avoid violence and atrocities against them. The SC/ST
(POA) Act has not been framed for misusing it. On the basis of above
facts, prayer for bail has been made.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the prayer for bail.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned
APP and from perusal of the records, it appears that the both the parties
are on litigating terms and the whole dispute is for a piece of land.
Earlier the informant-victim along with his family members have been
convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih In T.R.
No.729 of 2018 (G.R. No.2595 of 2008) Vide order Dated 29.08.2018.
Again, the present case has also been lodged with regard to the cropping
of paddy on the same piece of land.
8. Considering the nature of dispute and materials available on
record, 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Giridih in
connection with Complaint Case No.44 of 2017, subject to the
conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. and also on the
condition that the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of their
Aadhar Cards and also submit their mobile numbers before the learned
court below which they 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 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.1057 of 2019, in connection with
Complaint Case No.44 of 2017 is, hereby, set aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
