Jharkhand High Court
Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajit Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 608 of 2022
....
1. Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajit Kumar Gupta
2. Aakash Kumar Gupta @ Akashdeep .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Yashoda Devi .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Adv.
For the State : Mr. A.P.Topno, APP
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Adv.
....
04/21.09.2022 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as
learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.07.2022
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Hazaribagh in A.B.P. No.947 of 2022, arising out of Protest SC/ST Case No.66 of
2021, registered for the offence under Sections 341/ 323/ 504/ 406/ 420/ 354/
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellants have 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.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellant No.1 has sold 3 decimals of land to the alleged victim-respondent No.2. It
has been further submitted that the appellants have 80 decimals of land and out of
that it had been sold to other persons also. At the best the allegation made by the
appellants constitutes the case of demarcation. Further, 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 that if there is a land dispute
between the parties the jurisdiction of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot be ousted. On
above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
Learned APP and learned counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer
for bail of the appellants.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the victim that she has
purchased 3 decimals of land and when she has gone at the place for taking
possession, one of the person, namely, Kartik Ram has objected the same stating
that he has earlier purchased this piece of land. Thereafter the victim has
approached the appellants for return of the amount but instead of returning the
amount, victim has been abused. It has been further submitted that the money
should be returned or the possession of the land should be given. If these things are
done, the victim has no grievance.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records,
it appears that the F.I.R. has been lodged alleging that the land in question has been
sold to somebody else also while the defense has been taken by the appellants that
the rakba of the land is 80 decimals and different portion has been sold to different
persons. It further appears that the police after investigation have submitted the
final form.
Considering the nature of dispute between the parties and the
investigation made by the police, 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
anticipatory 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 Addl.
Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribag in connection with
Protest SC/ST Case No.66 of 2021, on the conditions as laid down under Section
438 (2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
