Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Pande @ Anil Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 886 of 2019
....
1. Anil Kumar Pande @ Anil Kumar Pandey
2. Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh
3. Vinay Kumar Jha @ Binay Kumar Jha .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manu Manjhi .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kishlay Kumar, Adv.
....
07/09.06.2022 The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the
Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State
as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2-victim.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated
31.07.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I- cum- Special Judge,
Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No.928 of 2019 in connection with SC/ST Case No.50 of
2019 arising out of C/1 Case No.1132 of 2017, registered for the offence under
Sections 323/ 448/ 147/ 148/ 149/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(r)
(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory
bail of the appellants have been rejected.
A complaint case being Complaint Case No.C/1, Case No.1132 of 2017
has been filed making allegation that these appellants have wrongly sold the land
belonging to the victim-respondent No.2.
It has been alleged that these appellants have obtained power of attorney
from Phul Kumari, who is a fake person, and on the strength of such power of
attorney, the land belonging to the victim has been sold to the other co-accused.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the entire
allegation is false as the appellants have acted on the basis of power of attorney.
The person (Phul Kumari) who has given the power of attorney has not been made
accused in the present case. It is a purely civil dispute and just to bypass the civil
case, the present criminal case has been lodged. Learned counsel for the appellants
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710.
On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel for the victim has
opposed the prayer and submitted that the land belonging to the Scheduled Tribe
has wrongly been sold by these appellants and further Section 18 of the SC/ST
(PoA) Act bars the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it
appears that these appellants have sold the land on the strength of power of
attorney, thus the dispute is civil in nature.
Considering the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellants are
directed to surrender in the court below, within four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of this order, and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the
court below shall enlarge them on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I- cum- Special Judge, Jamshedpur in connection
with SC/ST Case No.50 of 2019 (C/1 Case No.1132 of 2017), on the conditions as
laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
