Jharkhand High Court
Sheo Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 October, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.97 of 2022
1. Sheo Kumar Prasad
2. Reena Devi
3. Deepak Kumar
4. Rahul Kumar
5. Nintu Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar
...... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajendra Ram ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. A. R. Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A. P. Topno, A.P.P
For the Resp. No.02 : Mr. Kumar Saurav, Amicus Curiae
---------
07/Dated: 11th October, 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel
for the State and learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the
victim/ respondent No.02.
2. The present appeal has been filed, under Section 14(A)(2)
of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (For short the SC/ ST Act), against the order
dated 07.06.2021, passed by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge - I, Hazaribag, in A.B.P. No.639 of 2021, whereby
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants has
been rejected in connection with Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.83
of 2019, for the offence under Sections 323/ 379/ 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(S) of the SC/ ST Act.
3. The present appeal has been filed for grant of anticipatory
bail to the appellants in spite of prohibition of Section 18 of the
SC/ ST Act. It appears that cognizance has been taken on the
basis of a complaint petition being Complaint (SC/ST) Case
No.83 of 2019. It further appears that it has been alleged that
one of the family members of the victim had sold the land to the
appellant more than his share which is the cause of dispute
between the parties. Due to above reason, the altercation has
taken place between the parties and they have been abused by
taking the caste name.
4. Innocence has been claimed and it has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellants that the entire allegation
is nothing but to settle the land dispute between the parties. The
appellants are the purchaser of the land through registered sale
deed and if there is a dispute amongst the family members of
the victim, the appellants are not concerned. 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 by learned counsel for the appellants that
if there is a serious land dispute between the parties and if there
is an attempt to settle the said dispute through criminal case
then bar of Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act will not get attracted.
5. On the other hand learned A.P.P and learned Amicus
Curiae appearing on behalf of the victim have opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that
it is a clear-cut case under the SC/ ST Act as the cognizance has
been taken under the SC/ ST Act by the court below. Once the
cognizance under the SC/ ST Act is taken, the bar of Section 18
of the SC/ ST Act gets attracted and as such the appellants are
not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of the record, it appears that the appellants are the
purchasers of land from the family members of the victim, which
is the cause of dispute between the parties. The allegations are
general and omnibus in nature and that too in connection with
the possession over the said piece of land.
Considering the above fact and the mandate of Hon'ble
Apex Court, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellants. 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 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, Hazaribag in connection with
Complaint (SC/ST) Case No.83 of 2019 on the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., subject to condition that 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.
7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
