Jharkhand High Court
Nakul Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.386 of 2023
1.Nakul Yadav
2.Briksh Yadav @ Rambriksh Yadav @ Rambriksh Gope
3.Chhatu Yadav ..... ... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Suresh Rabidas .... .... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. R.R. Ravidas, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate
--------
03/24 August, 2023
th
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants against the order dated 12th May, 2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST
Act, Hazaribag in A.B.P. No.916 of 2023 arising out of Barhi P.S.
Case No.97 of 2020, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the appellants has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no alleged
offence under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out as the occurrence did
not take place in public view. It is further submitted that there is
no witness of public of the occurrence and the F.I.R. was lodged
with delay of 45 days. Learned counsel for the appellants has also
relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Prathavi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727.
3. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2 opposed the contentions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants and contended that from the allegations
made in the F.I.R. itself, the offence under the S.C./S.T. Act is
made out, as such, the case law relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellants does not apply in the present case.
4. The prosecution case is that the informant Suresh Ravidas gave
the written information with the police station concerned with
these allegations that on the issue of the land dispute in front of
house of the informant, the accused Nakul Yadav, Briksh Yadav
and Chhatu Yadav who had taken over the possession of land on
12th January, 2020 and when the informant came to plough the
land, his wife was dragged by all the three accused persons and
he was also assaulted. The caste related words were also used in
filthy language. Hence, this F.I.R. was lodged.
5. From bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is found that the ingredients of
the offence under Section 3(1)(g), (r), (s) are made out against
the appellants which reads as under :
"Section 3. Punishments for offences atrocities : (1) Whoever, not
being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe-
(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the
enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or
premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or
takes away the produce therefrom.
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by
caste name in any place within public view;"
6. This Court after taking into consideration the allegations made in
the F.I.R., thinks it fit and proper not to give the benefit of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Prathavi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) to
the appellants.
7. The learned court below has rejected the anticipatory bail
application of the appellants on the ground that the same was not
maintainable in view of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. Act.
8. In view of the submissions made and materials available on
record, the impugned order dated 12th May, 2023 passed in A.B.P.
No.916 of 2023 bears no illegality and the same is hereby
affirmed.
9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit
