Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 71 of 2022
....
1. Sunil Kumar
2. Bhagirath Kumar
3. Parmanand Sahu
4. Ramawtar Kumar .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Robin Kumar .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.K..Dubey, A.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, Adv.
....
04/27.06.2022 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State
as well as learned counsel for the victim.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.02.2022
passed by the learned A.J.C.-XI-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in A.B.P.
No.108 of 2022, arising out of SC/ST (Comp.) Case No.81 of 2018, registered for
the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellants have been rejected.
The victim has filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No.81 of
2018. From perusal of complaint case, it appears that there is a land dispute
between the parties. The particular piece of land has been purchased by the victim
in the year 2007 from somebody else and on the strength of the sale deed, he got the
land mutated in his name. Subsequently, the present appellants are claiming right,
title and interest over the said piece of land being a raiyat and ancestral property. A
title suit has also been filed by the appellants against the present victim in the year
2010 being Title Suit No.520 of 2010. Even the sale deed of this victim has been
got cancelled and and ex-party order has been passed and the authority has ordered
for lodging F.I.R. against the present victim.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if there is a serious
land dispute then the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act will not get
attracted. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellants has referred the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of
Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, and submitted that since there is a
land dispute between the parties rather the land of this appellant has wrongly been
purchased and mutated by the victim and as such the present criminal proceeding is
nothing but misuse of the process of the court. It has been further submitted that
when commission of any crime has been brought to the notice of the court, then the
court may refer the matter for investigation or may keep the matter under enquiry
and this is not the desire of the Presiding Officer rather it is the requirement of the
case. If the case requires investigation, then the Presiding Officer has no other
option but to send the same for further investigation or if he decides to enquire into
the matter, then he shall call for a report from the concerned government official or
he can make enquiry himself on going on the spot. In the present case, merely on
the statement of some witnesses, cognizance has been taken and as such the order
taking cognizance is itself bad as because the entire material is not available with
the court and as such the order taking cognizance itself is a bad.
On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel for the victim has
supported the impugned order whereby the anticipatory has bail has been rejected
and submitted that the witnesses have been produced which suggest that this victim
has been abused and his land has been grabbed and some gold chain and another
things has also been snatched by the present appellants and as such the offence
under SC/ST (PoA) Act is made out and the bar of Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) is
applicable.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of
complaint petition, it appears that there is serious land dispute between the parties
rather the narratives suggest that the appellants are victim so far as land is
concerned. Further the court has taken cognizance in such a manner, without
making proper enquiry or calling for report regarding the possession of the land
itself suggest that the cognizance has been taken in mechanical manner and as such
the same is defective.
In view of above discussion and 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 A.J.C.-XI-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act,
Ranchi in connection with SC/ST (Comp.) Case No.81 of 2018, on the conditions
as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
