Jharkhand High Court
Dwarika Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 136 of 2021
-----------
Dwarika Prasad .....Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sunil Oraon ....Respondents
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A. P. P.
For the Victim : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Pandey, Adv.
-----
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the
parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities
were good.
........
03/23.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel the State as
well as learned counsel for the victim.
The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi in
ABP No. 421 of 2021 arising out of Ratu P. S. Case No. 289 of 2020, whereby
the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant was rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is
dispute over a piece of land for which SAR case is already pending between the
parties. Additionally, the present criminal case has been lodged for making extra
pressure. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The
State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in 2020 (10 ) SCC 710. On the above
fact, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the victim have
opposed the prayer and submitted that the land belongs to the Schedule Tribe has
been illegally captured by the appellant and as such case under the SC/ST (POA)
Act is made out.
In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that
investigation has already been completed and SAR case is already pending, thus
there is civil dispute between the parties and the present criminal case has been
lodged for making extra pressure and in view of the mandate of the Apex Court
in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), I am inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant. The appellant is directed to surrender in the
Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of
this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he will be enlarged on bail,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi in connection with Ratu
P. S. Case No. 289 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr. P. C. and also to the condition that the appellant will submit
self attested copy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before
the learned court below which he will not change during pendency of the case
without prior permission of the court.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
25.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi in ABP No. 421 of 2021 arising out of Ratu P. S.
Case No. 289 of 2020 is, hereby, set aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
kamlesh/
