Jharkhand High Court
Razi Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 622 of 2019
-----------
1. Razi Ahmad
2. Lilo Mahto @ Lilo Yadav
3. Juthan Yadav
4. Prakash Yadav
5. Sheetal Yadav
6. Bitul Yadav
7. Charka Sao .....Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Negeshwar Baitha @ Nago Baitha ....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vipul Divya, APP.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Mahadeo, Thakur, Advocate
.....
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.
........
12/13.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State
as well as learned counsel for the victim.
The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied
by the order dated 21.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Hazaribag in A. B. P. No. 575 of 2019 in connection with Protest-cum-
Complaint Petition No. 1113 of 2018, whereby the anticipatory bail of the
appellants were rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants by making
reference to 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 that since no offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out and further the
root cause of the dispute between the parties is land dispute, bar of Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable and accused may be extended the benefit
of Section 438 of the Cr. P. C.
Criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being
Katkamsandi P. S. Case No. 227 of 2017 alleging that while the victim was
cultivating the land, it has been objected, abused and assaulted by these
appellants. Police after investigation has submitted final form. On which Protest-
cum-Complaint Petition No. 1113 of 2018 has been instituted. In the said protest
petition, cognizance has been taken under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/379 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the SC/ST Act. It has been submitted
that these appellants have been falsely implicated in the case under the SC/ST
Act by the victim due to land dispute. Considering the above fact, vide order
dated 21.08.2019, interim protection was granted to these appellants. On the
above fact, it has been submitted that since root cause of the dispute is land
dispute, hence benefit of Section 438 of the Cr. P. C. may be given to these
appellants.
Learned counsel for the state as well as learned counsel for the victim has
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records,
it appears that there is civil litigation between the parties for which an order
under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. has been passed in favour of the appellants
and an FIR being Katkamsandi P. S. Case No. 227 of 2017 has been lodged in
which police after investigation already submitted final form and thereafter on
protest, Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 1113 of 2018 has been instituted in
which cognizance has been taken.
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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag in
connection with Complaint Petition No. 1113 of 2018 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
21.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag in A. B. P.
No. 575 of 2019 in connection with Protest-cum- Complaint Petition No. 1113
of 2018 is, hereby, set aside.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
kamlesh/
