Jharkhand High Court
Biru Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 568 of 2022
---
1. Biru Kumar Mahato
2. Kundan Singh
3. Md. Noushad Khan @ Md. Nausad Khan ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanatan Hembram ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP
For the victim : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Adv.
---
03/17.10.2022: 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, victim and learned counsel for
the State.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.06.2022
passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No.1548 of
2022 arising out of C.P. Case No.1097 of 2019 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.34
of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 354, 420, 384, 211,
120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been
rejected.
The appellants have approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail
although the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act.
Criminal Law has been put into motion by filing C.P. Case No.1097 of
2019 wherein allegation has been made with respect to the dispute exists between the
parties regarding land situated at Pandarpala near bypass road of Khata No.357, Plot
Nos.700, 701, 702, 675 and 676 measuring total area of 1 acre and 80 decimals.
By referring Annexure-2, it has been submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that there is agreement with Moti Hembram, who is one of the co-sharers
of the present victim. There is dispute between Moti Hembram and the victim.
There is civil suit and criminal case also between the parties. Further, Civil Suit is
also going on between the parties being Original (Partition) Suit No.222 of 2018
with regard to the land in dispute. It has been further submitted that alleged victim
has approached the police for initiation of the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
as there is dispute between the parties and the present complaint case is nothing, but
misuse of the protective section of the S.C./S.T. Act.
By referring to the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court in Cr.
Appeal (S.J.) No.262 of 2020, counsel for the appellants has submitted that since
present case is also of same and similar, same benefit can be given to these
appellants too.
It has been further submitted that once there is land dispute between the
parties, Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act will not get attracted and reference has been
made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State
of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710. On the above basis, prayer for
anticipatory bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned APP and counsel for the victim have opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that there is
allegation of atrocities and once atrocities case is made out, Section 18 of the
S.C./S.T. Act, bars granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
It has been pointed out by learned A.P.P. that the victim has not raised
objection regarding applicability of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, which clearly
stipulates that tribal land cannot be transferred to non-tribe. Even if such, transfer is
made, the court cannot take cognizance of the same.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record,
it appears that admittedly it is tribal land and it cannot be possessed by a non-tribe.
Section 46 (3) of the C.N.T. Act, reads as under:-
(3) No transfer of contravention of sub- section (1), shall be registered or
shall be in any way recognized as valid by any Court, whatever in
exercise, of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction.
Thus, there is absolute bar under C.N.T. Act with regard to transfer of
tribal land to non-tribe. Once Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act is taken note of, there is
no bonafide land dispute between the parties.
Since there is allegation and supporting material against the appellants, I
am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/-
