Jharkhand High Court
Rojan Mian @ Rajak Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1206 of 2019
---
1. Rojan Mian @ Rajak Ansari
2. Kadeer Mian
3. Javed Mian @ Md. Javed Ansari
4. Jagir Mian @ Jahangeer
5. Ismail Mian
6. Salim Mian @ Salim Ansari ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bijay Turi @ Ram Dayal @ Bijay Ram Dayal
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, 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.
---
07/28.07.2021: The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State.
3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 in spite
of the valid service of notice.
4. The criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated
22.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in
A.B.P. No.905 of 2019, in connection with SC/ST (Complaint) Case
No.73 of 2018, for the offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 354(B)
of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby and whereunder the
anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the case has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in spite of the
fact that the cognizance has been taken under the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. It has further been submitted that there is a land dispute
between the parties concerning to the Plot No.1055/2002, under Khata
No.114, area of 2.40 decimal. This land is claimed by the victim-
complainant on the strength of grant by the state. For the said purpose, a
title suit being Title Suit No.56 of 2017 has been filed which is pending
before the court below. In para-3 of the title suit, it has been mentioned
that for the same said relief the title suit being Title Suit No.113 of 2004
was dismissed for default on 11.12.2008. It has further been argued by
the learned counsel for the appellants that there was a complaint petition
being Complaint Case No.734 of 2003 for the same piece of land making
same allegation against the appellants and the said case has been
dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2008 by Special Judge, Giridih
acquitting the present appellants. This fact has been suppressed in the
present pending case.
6. Referring 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. It has been submitted that if there is a land dispute
between the parties pending before the court, bar of section 18 of the
S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not applicable. Hence, the
appellants deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. On the other side, learned counsel for the state has opposed the
prayer for bail.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record, it appears that there is a title suit pending between the parties
regarding the impugned piece of land. Further, the earlier complaint
petition filed for similar allegation has been rejected finding it to be false
allegations. Suppressing all these facts in the complaint petition is
nothing but misuse of the process of law. 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.
9. 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in
connection with SC/ST (Complaint) Case No.73 of 2018, 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.
10. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.905 of 2019, in connection with
SC/ST (Complaint) Case No.73 of 2018 is, hereby, set aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
