Jharkhand High Court
Yamuna Ram Modi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.557 of 2022
----
1. Yamuna Ram Modi
2. Vijay Agarwal @ Vijay Kumar Agarwal .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shukar Baske .... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellants : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
For the victim : Mr. S.K. Sarswat, A.C.
----
07/Dated: 7th December, 2022
I.A. No.8846 of 2022
This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 16 days
in filing the present criminal appeal.
In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing
the appeal, is hereby, condoned.
The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and
Amicus Curiae for the victim.
The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.03.2022
passed in A.B.P. No.203 of 2022 by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Giridih in
connection with Complaint Case No.08 of 2018, registered for the offence under
Sections 120B, 384, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (r) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act.
The present appeal has been filed in the nature of anticipatory bail as the
appellants have apprehension of their arrest although there is bar of Section 18 of the
S.C./S.T. Act.
It appears that there is land dispute between the parties and for that a complaint
case has been filed being Complaint Case No.08 of 2018. On the said complaint,
cognizance has been taken. Instead of responding to the order of summon, anticipatory
bail has been filed, which has been rejected vide order dated 29.03.2022 and the said
order of rejection is impugned before this Court.
Innocence has been claimed and it has been submitted that there is land
dispute between the parties as is evident from the perusal of the complaint petition
itself. The nature of allegation requires investigation but cognizance has been taken
only on the basis of complainant witness. It has been further submitted that
investigation and enquiry depends upon the nature of allegation. Requirement of the
case is the deciding factor whether the matter should be inquired into or should be
referred for the investigation. Reference has been made to the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020
(10) SCC 710.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and Amicus Curiae for the victim have
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and it has been submitted that
offence of atrocities is made out from bare perusal of the complaint petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it
appears that criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint petition
being Complaint Case No.08 of 2018. It is settled law that Enquiry or Investigation are
requirement of the case and the nature of allegation. However, in the present case,
cognizance has already been taken and that order of cognizance has not been
challenged.
It is settled principle of law that if the accused appears in response of the
summons then it is not in the arena of Section 438 Cr.P.C and accordingly Section 18
of the SC/ ST Act has no role to play. Only if the alleged accused chooses not to
appear in response of the summon, issued by the court, then only the arena of Section
438 of the Cr.P.C is available.
In the present case, it appears that the appellants have chosen not to appear in
response of the summons, rather they have decided to approach the Court under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Considering the entire facts of the case, as discussed above, the appellants are
directed to appear before the court below within three weeks from today in response to
the summon. The court below is directed to take decision regarding the bail of the
appellants on the same day on which they appear, keeping in mind the mandate of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Anr. reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
It is also made clear that under the SC/ ST Act, the victim is required to be
heard before taking any decision, but in the present case, since the victim is the
complainant and he is pursuing the case, and as such no notice is required to be issued
upon him.
It is also made clear that the case falls under the Category-A {Satender Kumar
Antil (supra)}, as no specific condition has to be imposed for grant of bail.
With the above discussions and observations, the present appeal is, hereby,
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/-
