Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Modak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.106 of 2020
Gopal Modak ...... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shankar Prasad Soren ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Ray, A.P.P
---------
th
07/Dated: 28 February, 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. In spite of valid vakalatnama, nobody appears on behalf
of the respondent No.02/ victim.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order
dated 13.01.2020, passed by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge - 1st -cum- Special Judge -cum- F.T.C, Bokaro,
in A.B.P. No.1691 of 2019, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the appellant has been rejected in
connection with C.P. Case No.959 of 2018, registered for the
offence under Sections 323, 341, 385 & 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, and Sections 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
(For short the SC/ ST Act).
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that a criminal case has been lodged under the SC/
ST Act being Sector - IV SC/ ST P.S. Case No.01 of 2017
dated 08.01.2017 alleging that this appellant has encroached
upon the land of the victim/ respondent No.02 and also
abused the victim. The police after investigation has
submitted the final form stating that it is a civil dispute.
Thereafter, the victim filed the protest petition in which the
cognizance has been taken under the SC/ ST Act also. It has
further been submitted that the land in question has been
purchased by the brother of the appellant and subsequently
after death of the brother, a portion of the land has been sold
to somebody else. The victim/ respondent No.02 is the
adjacent raiyat of the said land and there is a boundary
dispute. It is at the best case of demarcation.
Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10
SCC 710 has submitted that the anticipatory bail is
maintainable.
3. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that the police after
investigation has found the dispute civil in nature.
Considering the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, this court finds
that the appellant has the bonafide claim over the property
and further, as the dispute is civil in nature, 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
Additional Sessions Judge - 1st -cum- Special Judge -cum-
F.T.C, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No.959 of 2018, on
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
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.
5. In the result, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
