Jharkhand High Court
Qamrul Hoda @ Md. Subhan @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 313 of 2021
Qamrul Hoda @ Md. Subhan @ Md. Subahan ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kishun Murmu ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, APP
For the Victim : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
---
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.
---
04/20.09.2021: The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2016.
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
State and learned counsel for the Victim.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.07.2021
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Spl. Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act,
Jamshedpur in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No.160 of 2019 registered under
Sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 471, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(1) (iv) (ix) (x) (xv) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
In spite of mandate of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, the present appeal has been filed, which is in the nature of
anticipatory bail, making reference to the judgment passed by the Apex Court
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 (Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.).
It has been submitted that the Original Title Suit No.23 of 2019 has been
instituted by the victim with the following prayers:
(a) For Injunction, against the Principal Defendant No.1 and in
favour of the plaintiff, restraining the Defendant No.1 from
disbursing the possession of the plaintiff, over the suit property
in any manner.
(b) For costs of the suit.
(c) For any other relief or reliefs, to which the plaintiff may be
found entitled in equity and law.
Thus, in the said Suit, it has been claimed that the victim is in possession
of the suit land and one namely, Sakro Devi is disturbing his possession. Further, my
attention has been drawn to the present complaint petition being Complaint Case
No.06 of 2019, which has been converted into an FIR. Paragraphs-6, 7, 8 of the said
complaint reads as under:
06. That, earlier the Accused No.1 Sakro Devi was inducted as
tenant in the said Holding by the complainant and the accused
Sakro Devi used to reside in the said holding along with her
family after paying regular monthly rent to the complainant and
sometimes also to the son of complainant.
07. That, in the meantime, the wife of complainant felt sick as
she suffered from cancer and for which the complainant and his
sons were not able to collect the monthly rental from the
accused Sakro Devi on a regular basis and illness of wife of
complainant made the complainant and his entire family
members engaged completely for the last few years.
08. That, taking advantage of engagement of complainant and
his family members, the Accused Sakro Devi developed greed
over his property.
Thus, the case has been made out that the complainant's property has been
destroyed, admitting that Sakro Devi was in the possession of the suit land. Thus, it
is clear case of property dispute and for adding some pressure, the present complaint
case being Complaint Case No.06 of 2019 has been filed, which has been converted
into an FIR being Golmuri P.S. Case No.60 of 2019. Relying upon the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), present appeal in the nature of
anticipatory bail has been filed.
On the other hand, counsel for the victim as well as State have opposed
the prayer and have submitted that the victim has been abused and his property has
been destroyed and as such, offence under S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
made out against the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
complaint as well as Original Title Suit, it appears that there is property dispute
between the parties. Even the suit land was under the possession of the accused and
this fact, has been admitted by the victim himself in the complaint petition. It is clear
case of civil dispute between the parties over a piece of land and as such, making
false allegation for creating extra pressure by misusing the S.C./S.T. Act, cannot be
ruled out. The S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, gives right to the members of the S.C./S.T.
Community to prosecute perpetrator but at the same time, it cannot be used for the
prosecution. The Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) has held that the
civil dispute converted into criminal prosecution, then the bar of Section 18 of
S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted and as such, the benefit
should be extended to the accused.
In view of the above discussions, this Court is inclined to grant privilege
of anticipatory bail to the appellant, above named, Hence, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, he shall be
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand), with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
1st-cum-Spl. Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Jamshedpur, in connection with Golmuri
P.S. Case No.160 of 2019, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C. and also on the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested
photocopy of the Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the
learned court below which he 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 disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/-
