Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 930 of 2019
....
1. Amit Kumar Mishra
2. Ashish Kumar Mishra .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manu Manjhi .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
....
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 are good.
....
09/03.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State
as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.08.2019
passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge,
SC/ST (PoA) Act, Jamshedpur wherein anticipatory bail of the appellants have
been rejected in A.B.P. No.1037 of 2019 in connection with SC/ST Case No.50 of
2019 arising out of C/1 Case No.1132 of 2017, registered for the offence under
Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 448/ 506/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 (g) (r) (s) (z) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A complaint case has been filed being C/1 Case No.1132 of 2017 making
allegation that the land belonging to the victim has been wrongly purchased and he
has been ousted from the said land and also in the process of ousting, filthy
language has been used by the appellants.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the entire
allegation is false as the land has been purchased through the Raiyat to whom the
land belongs and the possession has accordingly delivered to them. Appellants have
come into possession over the disputed land on the basis of sale deed and as such if
there is any dispute, it is a civil dispute and the civil dispute has been converted
into the criminal case just to build up pressure.
Since the appellants have been made accused for asserting their right,
learned counsel for the appellants has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC
710 and has been submitted that the protection of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is
available to the appellants.
Learned counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer and submitted that
a member of Scheduled Tribe has been ousted from the land and forgery has been
committed in purchase of land and as such the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act is
made out and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars the jurisdiction of Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record,
it appears that there is sale deed in favour of the appellants. The court below has
taken cognizance only on the basis of statement of the witnesses without making
any proper enquiry or the spot verification.
In view of above facts, 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 shall be enlarged on
bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Jamshedpur in connection
with SC/ST Case No.50 of 2019 arising out of C/1 Case No.1132 of 2017 on the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., subject to condition that the
appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhar Card and also submit
their mobile number before the learned court below which they 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.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
