Jharkhand High Court
Jainandan Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 394 of 2022
....
1. Jainandan Mehta
2. Taleshwar Mahto @ Taleshwar Prasad
3. Rajendra Prasad Mehta
4. Lakshuman Mehta @ Lakshman Kumar .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bashudeo Ram .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, APP
For the Res. No.2 : None
....
04/15.07.2022 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
State.
In spite of information given to the victim, nobody appears on behalf of
the victim to participate in the proceeding.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2022
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in A.B.P. No.478 of 2022
arising out of SC/ST (Complaint) Case No.117 of 2018, registered for the offence
under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1)(r)(s) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellants have been rejected.
From perusal of record, it appears that the criminal case has been put into
motion by filing a complaint petition being Complaint SC/ST Act Case No.117 of
2018. From perusal of the complaint petition itself appears that there is a dispute
between the parties over a piece of lance having Khata No.72 Plot No.659 an area
of 1.30 acres. The civil suit is also pending between the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the court below is
not even aware of basic of the law. On a complaint petition, cognizance has been
taken in spite of the fact that there is a serious land dispute between the parties and
civil suit is pending. The court should have taken cognizance only after proper
enquiry i.e. regarding the place of occurrence and calling for a report from the
concerned authorities regarding the possession over the land or nature of the right
of the parties but without making proper enquiry, cognizance has been taken and as
such the order of cognizance is itself defective.
Further, referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, it has
been submitted that in case of serious land dispute, invoking the protective Act of
SC/ST (PoA) Act is nothing but misuse of Act and in such situation bar of Section
18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act will not be applicable.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the fact that there is a serious land dispute between the
parties and the court below has taken cognizance without having proper material,
the appellants are granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, 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 anticipatory 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in
connection with SC/ST (Complaint) Case No.117 of 2018, on the conditions as laid
down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
