Jharkhand High Court
Jaigovind Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 268 of 2020
....
1. Jaigovind Sahu
2. Ashok Kumar Gupta
3. Ram Mahto
4. Laxman Mahto
5. Pappu Singh .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mangra Nayak .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, APP
For the Respondents No.2 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
....
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had
no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
....
12/15.07.2021 The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the
Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State
as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2-victim.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2020
passed by the learned A.J.C.-VII, Ranchi in A.B.P. No.350 of 2020 arising out of
SC/ST Case No.92 of 2018 for the offence under Section 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellants have been rejected.
A complaint case being Complaint Case No.92 of 2018 has been filed
against the appellants under Sections 147/148/323/341/386/504/506/452/120(B)/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)(xv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act making allegation that the appellants have dispossessed victim and
interfering with the enjoyment of rights over a piece of land which has been given
to the ancestral of the victim as a Sikmi Raiyat. The cognizance has been taken on
22.01.2020 in the said complaint petition under Section 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that bar of
Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is applicable only in the case, if any offence
under SC/ST Act is made out and further relying upon para-16 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand
reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710. It has been further submitted that if there is bona-
fide land dispute then the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not applicable and
accused may be given the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to the Title Suit
filed by the victim being Title Suit No.02 of 2016, wherein a petition under order
39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed and vide order dated
13.01.2020, the trial court has passed the order in following terms:-
"The plaintiff save and except the saying that he is owner of
the suit land no material brought in the case record to establish that
he is owner and in possession of the suit land. Undersigned find that
the plaintiff failed to establish the prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss which required to grant injunction.
I find that there is no merit in the application filed by the
plaintiff. Accordingly it is hereby rejected. Put up on 21.01.2020 for
evidence."
Proceeding under 144 of the Cr.P.C was also initiated between the parties
over the same piece of land.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the victim has drawn my attention
to Section 3 (f) & (g) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and submission has been advanced
that the victim has got an ancestral land and this land has been settled to the
ancestral of the victim as a Sikmi Raiyat. The accused are interfering with the
possession of that right which is an offence under Section 3 (f) & (g) of SC/ST Act
and on that ground prayer for bail has been opposed.
Having heard the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds
that there is land dispute between the parties for which a civil suit is pending in the
court below and also proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C has been initiated
between both the parties.
Prima facie, finding has been recorded by the court below that victim
herein has failed to show title over the said piece of land. The injunction has been
sought for restraining the accused-appellants from making any construction over
the said piece of land. No cognizance has been taken under Section 3 (f) & (g) of
the Act. Further the allegation of Section 3(1)(r) of the of SC/ST (POA) Act
appears to be motivated.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the bar under Section 18
of SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable in the present case and considering the entire
facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants, above named, are directed to be
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-VII-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST Case No.92 of
2018 subject to condition that the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of
their Aadhar Card and also submit their mobile number 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.
Accordingly, instant criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 13.02.2020 passed by the learned A.J.C.-VII cum Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST Case No.92 of 2018 is, hereby, set
aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
