Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kushwaha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.726 of 2022
Raj Kushwaha ...... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. MO Birajo Devi ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P
For the Resp. No.02 : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
---------
03/Dated: 01st December, 2022
1. Heard Learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.P.P
and learned counel, appearing for the respondent No.2/
victim.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A
of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (For short the SC/ ST Act), against the order
dated 11.08.2022, passed by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge - I -cum- Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Ramgarh in A.B.P No.538 of 2022, whereby the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant has been rejected in
connection with Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.39 of 2021,
registered for the offence under Sections 323/ 504/ 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (r) & 3(1)(s) of the
SC/ST Act.
3. It appears that the present appeal has been filed in the
nature of anticipatory bail in spite of prohibition of Section 18
of the SC/ ST Act. The case has been lodged on the basis of
the complaint petition being Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.39 of
2021. On perusal of the same, it appears that there is a
proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C as well as L.A.
Case No.7/2021-22. Thus, the possession of land is with the
present appellant and civil litigation between the parties is
going on. The allegation has been made that they are making
construction in spite of the pendency of the civil suit.
4. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand reported
in 2020 (10) SCC 710, it has been submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that there is a land dispute between
the parties and a civil suit is also pending as such, the bar of
Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act will not get attracted.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P and learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that the land, in
question, is non-transferable. Even if the possession of the
land is with the appellant then it is also bad in law.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of record, it appears that there is land dispute
between the parties and the possession of land is with the
appellant and for the recovery of the same L.A. Case
No.7/2021-22 has been filed.
Considering the above fact, I am inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the
appellant is 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 his arrest or surrender, he shall
be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to
the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge - I -cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), Ramgarh in connection
with Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.39 of 2021 on the conditions
as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C, subject to condition
that the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of his
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 the case without prior
permission of the court.
7. In the result, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
