Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Kushwaha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.180 of 2021
----
1. Mahendra Kushwaha
2. Dileshwar Kushwaha
3. Ravan Mahto
4. Charnu Mahto
5. Krishna Singh
6. Tota Mahto
7. Ritlal Mahto @ Ritulal Mahto
8. Om Prakash Mahto
9. Jodhan Mahto
10. Gulab Devi
11. Khamila Mahto @ Khaicha Mahto
12. Shibu Mahto .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gorav Rajwar .... .... Respondent
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Verma, A.P.P.
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, 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
07/Dated: 27 January, 2022
I.A. No.224 of 2022
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for recalling of the
order dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Court whereby the case has been
adjourned to be placed on 28.02.2022 as nobody has appeared on that day.
2. Considering the reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application,
the order dated 10.01.2022 is recalled and the matter is being heard today with
the consent of all the parties.
3. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application being I.A. No.224 of
2022 stands allowed.
Criminal Revision No.180 of 2021
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and Mr. Pradeep Kr. Verma, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr.
Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.
3. The criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated
04.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in
A.B.P. No.72 of 2021 arising out of the Complaint SC/ST Case No.07 of 2018
for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, whereby the
prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by the
court below stating that the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST
(POA) Act. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh.
4. After hearing the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that
there is a land dispute between the parties over a piece of land. There is a civil
dispute as well as proceeding under Sections 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C. The
present complaint petition has been filed being Complaint Case No.96 of 2018
against 14 persons alleging that since year 2015, on several occasions, the
victim was harassed and his possession over a land has been disturbed. After
conducting the enquiry, the court below has taken cognizance under sections
147, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the summons have been issued to the
appellants.
In response to the same, petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has
been filed which has been rejected by the impugned order stating that since the
victims have been abused in the public view and as such the Section 18 of the
SC/ST (POA) Act bars the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of
the 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 submitted that there is
a land dispute between the parties and the allegation is collateral in nature and
as such the application of Section 438 cannot be barred. On the above facts, the
prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail and it has been stated by submitting documents that there are
some judgments in favour of the victim over the Plot Nos.482 and 483 and his
possession has wrongly been disturbed by the accused persons and have been
abused by them. Section 18 bars the application of 438 of the Cr.P.C. and as
such the impugned order is proper and justified and requires no interference.
7. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that
there is a temple over the disputed land. The appellants are claiming that it is
public land while the claim has been raised by the victim that the land belongs
to him. The court below has taken cognizance after the enquiry but the
cognizance order does not suggest that any material has been brought on record
regarding the possession of the land. The court has only taken cognizance on
the basis of oral evidence regarding the using of abusive language by the
appellants. Further, it appears that the accused persons were armed but the arms
were not used.
8. Considering the entire material available on record and the nature of
dispute between the parties and considering the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to all the
appellants. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Ramgarh in connection with Complaint SC/ST Case No.07 of 2018, subject to
the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
9. In the result, instant criminal appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
