Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manoj Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4293 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 619 of 2022
                                         ....

             Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manoj Verma                        ....    Appellant
                                         Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Yamuni Devi                                           .... Respondents
                                         ....
             CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Appellant               : Mr. P.K.Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
                For the State                   : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
                For the Victim                  : Mr. Kumar Saurav, Amicus Curiae
                                                ....

07/19.10.2022             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 appellant and learned counsel for the State and learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the victim.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in A.B.P. No.1138 of 2022 arising out of SC/ST Complaint Case No.51 of 2017, registered for the offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 447/ 379/ 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3

(r)(s)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

The appellant has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail although the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is a land dispute between the parties. 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 and it has been submitted that if there is a land dispute between the parties then the provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not get attracted. Further, the alleged occurrence was not in public view and as such no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.

On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. and learned Amicus Curiae has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the order of Hon'ble Apex Court is applicable if there is bonafide land dispute. Further, the public view is required only in regard to abusement not with regard to the nature of offence as alleged in the present proceeding. The offence of atrocities is clearly made out and bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act is made out.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that there is allegation of sexual assault and this does not requires to be in public view to constitute the offence of atrocity.

Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The present criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/