Jharkhand High Court
Ujjwal Kumar Rooj vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 510 of 2024
Ujjwal Kumar Rooj, aged about 64 years, son of late Chandi
Pada Rooj, resident of Napit Para, Sonwadangal, P.O. and P.S.
Dumka Nagar, District-Dumka
..... Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Ashtam Devi @ Ashtami Devi, wife of Raj Kumar Rajak, resident
of Tinbazar, Srirampara Sabji Mandi, P.O. and P.S. Dumka Nagar,
District-Dumka
...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate.
For the State :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate
...............
03/15.10.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for
the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 25.07.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 198 of 2024 in connection with
Dumka SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024 registered under sections 323,
324, 504, 419, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. and under section 3 (1) (x) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 whereby the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail, has been rejected pending in the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Dumka.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant is a landlord and he has leased out certain
property in favour of respondent no.2 and since rent was not being paid
the eviction suit was filed which was decreed in favour of the appellant by
order dated 28.11.2023 and thereafter complaint case was filed which
was converted into F.I.R. He submits that maliciously the present case
has been lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer on the
ground that the learned court considered the money transaction between
the parties and thereafter rejected the anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that even
after taking all the money from the respondent no.2 the appellant has not
extended the lease period and money is kept with the appellant and in
view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
6. It appears that there is dispute with regard to lease hold
area and there is judgment of eviction by the competent court against
the respondent no.2 thereafter complaint case has been filed. Prima
facie it appears that the dispute is civil in nature and if such a dispute is
there the case is coming under the purview of " Hitesh Verma Vs.
State of Uttarakhand" reported in 2020 10 SCC 710 .
7. In view of above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the appellants.
8. Accordingly, the above named appellant is directed to
surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today and in
the event of his surrender / arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Dumka, in
connection with Dumka SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024 subject to
conditions that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses and the
appellant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given
to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
9. This appeal is allowed and disposed of and the impugned
order dated 25.07.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 198 of 2024 in connection
with Dumka SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2024, is hereby set aside.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi
