Rajmuni Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3638 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 333 of 2021
                                          ---

1. Rajmuni Yadav

2. Dhaneshwar Yadav

3. Santosh Yadav

4. Parmeshwar Yadav ... ... Appellants Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Geeta Devi ... ... Respondents

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.

           For the State                   : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
                                          ---

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.

---

04/27.09.2021: The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and in spite of service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the victim.

This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA), Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in A.B.P. No.634 of 2021, arising out of S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No.03 of 2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (s) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is land dispute and by referring 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 bar of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not applicable and as such, the appellants are entitled for anticipatory bail. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appellants have purchased the land and they have also applied for demarcation.

On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that right to way of the members of scheduled castes have been blocked and as such, offence under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out and the appellants do not deserve to be admitted on anticipatory bail Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, prima facie, it appears that way to home of the members of scheduled castes has been blocked and as such, these appellants are not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail, as per the mandate of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-