Jharkhand High Court
Bimlesh Kumar Yadav @ Bimlesh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.50 of 2022
----
1. Bimlesh Kumar Yadav @ Bimlesh Yadav
2. Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Ajit Yadav
3. Akhilesh Yadav
4. Basant Kumar Yadav @ Basant Yadav .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajanti Devi .... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellantss : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Adv.
----
th
08/Dated: 07 July, 2022
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel
for the State and the learned counsel for the victim.
3. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 in
A.B.P. No.1117 of 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Palamau in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.195 of 2020, registered for
the offence under Sections 448, 341, 323, 325, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 3(1)(f)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The case is
presently pending in the court of the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Palamau at Daltonganj.
4. It has been alleged that this appellants in order to grab the land of the victim
has assaulted and snatched the silver chain and some money etc.
5. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that it
is nothing but misuse of the protective provision of the SC/ST (POA) Act. There is
a land dispute between the parties. The reason for land dispute is that both the
parties had purchased the land from the same person.
6. Para-8 of the Criminal Revision No.33 of 2020 in order dated 29.11.2021 is
quoted herein below:-
"8. On the rival submission of the counsel of the
respective parties I have perused the case of the
parties and found the following admitted facts:-
I. Both parties have purchased the land in question
from one title holder.
II. Land of both parties are adjacent to each other.
III. Their name have already been mutated with
respect to purchased land in the Demand Register."
7. Further, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants that he has approached the authorities for demarcation of the land but
that has not been allowed by the victim party. There are various litigations
between the parties. In fact, to settle the land dispute the SC/ST (POA) Act has
been used.
By referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (10)
Supreme Court Cases 710 in the case of Hitesh Verma versus State of
Uttrakhand & Anr., it has been submitted that in such a situation the bar of
Section 18 is not applicable.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and the victim have
opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the victim that she has been abused and assaulted by entering into the house of the
victim and as such offence of SC/ST (POA) Act is made and bar of Section 18 is
applicable.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
records, prima facie it appears that more 'rakba' has been sold by the seller of the
land. The purchaser has purchased more than what exist. Thus, there is a serious
land dispute between the parties.
10. Be as it may, since there is serious land dispute between the parties, the
appellants, above named, 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 his 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 Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at
Daltonganj in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.195 of 2020 on the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Further, the appellants will
submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhaar Cards and also submit their
mobile numbers 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.
11. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
