Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 611 of 2020
-----------
1. Krishna Mahto
2. Mukesh Mahto @ Mukesh Kumar Verma
3. Bablu Mahto @ Bablu Kumar Verma .....Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sumitra Devi ....Respondents
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A. P. P.
-----
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.
........
08/06.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State.
Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2-the victim in spite of
valid service of notice.
The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied
by the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in A.B.P No. 290 of 2020 in connection with SC/ST P. S. Case No. 05 of
2020, whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellants were rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
anticipatory bail is not maintainable, but in 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, it has been observed that
in case of land dispute/ dispute in civil nature, bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST
(POA) Act is not applicable and accused may be given benefit of Section 438 of
the Cr. P. C.
It has been further submitted that the allegation suggests that the victim has
been assaulted in a dispute regarding possession of land bearing Khata No. 09
and Plot No. 132. It has been submitted that the same land belongs to these
appellants and in support of that various documents have been annexed showing
the rent receipts etc. On the above fact, it has been submitted that just to
pressurize these appellants, a false case under the SC/ST (POA) Act has been
lodged to settle the civil dispute. On the above facts, these appellants may be
granted privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State and on
perusal of the records, especially the case diary, it appears that the real dispute
between the parties is a civil dispute over a piece of land and this allegation is
offshoot of the civil dispute.
Considering the nature of dispute and the mandate of the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma(supra), I am inclined
to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants. The appellants are
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 their arrest or
surrender, they will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with
SC/ST P. S. Case No. 05 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr. P. C. and also to the conditions that the appellants will
submit self attested copy of their Aadhar Card and also submit their mobile
number before the learned court below which they 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
18.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P No.
290 of 2020 in connection with SC/ST P. S. Case No. 05 of 2020 is, hereby, set
aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
kamlesh/
