Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.684 of 2023
----
1.Ravi Sahu, aged about 47 years, son of Bahura Sahu
2.Kishore Sahu, aged about 53 years, son of Ganesh Sahu
3.Binod Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Gandur Singh
4.Rameshwar Sahu @ Rameshwar Kumar Sahu, aged about 28 years, son
of Akla Sahu
5.Nakul Sahu, aged about 51 years, son of Ramswarup Sahu
6.Devendra Sahu @ Chintu Sahu, aged about 40 years, son of Sita Sahu
All are residents of Village Sithio, PO and PS Senha, District
Lohardaga .... Appellants
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Ladhu Mahli, son of Rajaram Mahli, Village Sithio, PO and PS Senha,
District Lohardaga .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
----
10/21.11.2024 Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel for the
appellants, learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated
25.08.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.260 of 2023 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of Lohardaga SC/ST P.S.Case No.05 of
2023 whereby anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants
submits that there is no specific allegation against the appellants whereas
general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against them. He
submits that intentionally the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has
been inserted and no ingredients of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.684 of 2023
1989 is made out. He further submits that there are land dispute between
the parties and for that other proceedings are going on under section 107
and 144 Cr.P.C and if such a situation is there, the case of the appellants is
covered in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Hitesh Verma v.
State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. He submits that
no occurrence has taken place in public view. On these grounds, he submits
that anticipatory bail may kindly be allowed to the appellants.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent State by way of
drawing attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR submits that there
is direct allegation against the appellants and they have also taken caste
name of the informant and they started addressing themselves as naxalite
group. He submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order.
5. Learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.2 has adopted
the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
State and has further added that the appellants are in habit of threatening
the informant and they have also taken caste name of the informant.
6. Looking into the contents of the F.I.R, it transpires that on
09.11.2022 at 08 A.M when the complainant and others were at their house
in the meanwhile, the appellants have come there alongwith arms and they
started addressing themselves as naxalite group and they have also taken
caste name of the complainant. They have also thrown the informant on the
ground and they tried to take signature of the informant on the plain paper
and the allegations of firing is also made against one of the appellant and
when the villagers were assembled at the place of occurrence then the
accused persons eloped from the spot. In the order of the learned Sessions
Judge a reference of paragraph no.13 of the case diary has been made
wherein the statement of Krishna Mahli was recorded under section 161 of
2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.684 of 2023
the Cr.P.C and he has supported the case. In paragraph nos. 14, 15 and 16 of
the case diary again the witnesses have supported the case. In paragraph
no.29 of the case diary which is discussed in the order of the learned court, it
is disclosed that the proceeding under section 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C was
also initiated between the parties which is still pending. The allegation of
taking the caste name and using the filthy language is also there. If such
allegations are there, then certainly section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted. The Court finds that there is no illegality in
the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
7. As such, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.684 of 2023, is dismissed.
However, if the appellants surrender before the learned court and files a
petition, that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this
order.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.684 of 2023
