Jharkhand High Court
Kishore Chandra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 559 of 2021
....
Kishore Chandra Yadav .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Diku Ram Manjhi .... Respondents
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Sah, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.D. Munda, APP
For the victim : Mr. S.B. Deo, Adv.
....
07/21.09.2022 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, counsel for the victim and learned
counsel for the State.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.08.2021
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Seraikella in A.B.P. No.254 of 2021 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.25 of
2021, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3 (i)(x) 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 alleged that the victim and this appellant are on litigating term
and there is land dispute between the parties.
The present case has been lodged, making allegation that this appellant
was making construction over a piece of land and this victim has gone there for
stopping it and claimed that this land belongs to somebody else known to the
appellant and in that course, abusive language has been used.
Innocence has been claimed by the counsel for the appellant and by
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, bar of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. Act is
not applicable and the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be extended to the
accused. Further the appellant is not the aggressor rather victim is aggressor. On the
above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and counsel for the victim have opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that abusive
language has been used in the public place and as such, offence of atrocities is made
out and bar of Section 18 is applicable.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record,
it appears that the alleged victim has gone to the site of the construction, which does
not belong to the victim. Further, there is land dispute between the parties.
Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant, above named. Hence, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, he shall be
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand), with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
I-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S.
Case No.25 of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
and also on the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of the
Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below
which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case
without prior permission of the court.
Accordingly, instant criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/
