Vasart Ansari @ Vasarat vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 437 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.565 of 2021
                                     ----

Vasart Ansari @ Vasarat                         ....     ....     Appellant
                                   Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ramkishun Munda                              ....     ....     Respondents
                                     ----
        CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                     ----
For the Appellant                  : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv.
For the State                      : Mr.Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
For the Res. No.2                  :Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
                                     ----

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.

----

th 03/Dated: 14 February, 2022

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The appeal has been preferred in the nature of anticipatory bail and for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi in A.B.P. No.2223 of 2021 whereby the prayer for grant of bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Ranchi Sadar (SC/ST)P.S. Case No.39 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prayer has been made on the strength of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttrakhand &Anr. It has been alleged that altercation took place between the parties over a piece of land. Description of the same is as follows:-

भू म का ववरण ाम खाता सं0 लॉट सं0 रकबा हेसल 351 2944 29 डी0 2959 59 डी0 कुल 88 डी0

4. It has been submitted that for restoration of the same, the victim has filed a case under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act which has been ordered in his favour but subsequently the case has been remanded back by the appellate authority. Thus, the matter is still under consideration and the land is not in the possession of the victim. The accused is in possession of the land on the basis of transfer deed executed by the holder of the land who is one of the parties in the above restoration case. It has been submitted that the narratives itself suggest that the appellant is not the aggressor rather the victim himself has accepted that he has gone over the disputed land and was making construction. It has been further submitted that other co-accused similarly situated have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.557 of 2021 on 03.02.2022. On the above facts, it has been submitted that the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that there is a known dispute between the accused and other persons over the said piece of land. The dispute is with somebody else and as such the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable in the present fact of the case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that the victim has claimed the disputed land and has filed a petition for restoration under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Thus, the land is not in possession of the victim rather is in possession of other person on whose permission the present accused is in possession over the said land.

7. Considering the nature of the dispute, narratives disclosed in the FIR and the fact that other co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and considering the mandate of the Apex Court, 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 six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi in connection with Ranchi Sadar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.39 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

8. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi/-