Biru Kumar @ Biru Matho vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2394 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1468 of 2021
          Arising Out of PS Case No.-114 Year-2020 Thana- SANHAULA District- Bhagalpur
      ======================================================

1. Biru Kumar @ Biru Matho, aged about 21 years, Male.

2. Suendar Mahto @ Surendra Mahto, aged about 35 years, Male.

3. Ranjeet Mahto, aged about 45 years, Male.

4. Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Mahto, aged about 22 years, Male.

5. Bhawesh Mahto, aged about 30 years, Male.

All are sons Of Dudhnath Mahto.

6. Dudhnath Mahto, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Yaddu Mandal.

All are resident of Village - Maheshpur, PS- Sanhoulla, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the appellants on

15.06.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1468 of 2021 dt.17-06-2021

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special PP') for the

State.

4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated

07.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge-III-cum Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhagalpur in

Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1436 of 2020, by which prayer for

anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

5. The appellants apprehend arrest in connection with

Sanhaula PS Case No. 114 of 2020 dated 01.08.2020, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 354, 504, 506/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'SC/ST Act').

6. The allegation against the appellants is that when the

informant at 3:00 PM on 31.07.2020 was constructing a hut on her

land, for opening a shop, the appellants had come and due to land

dispute had abused her and also assaulted her and thereafter some

other accused also came and they started demolishing the hut

which was objected by the family members of the informant and

then they were also assaulted leading to injuries. It is also alleged

that the accused looted articles of the informant including

vegetables and they also threatened to kill.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1468 of 2021 dt.17-06-2021

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

informant side taking undue advantage of they being members of

the Scheduled Caste, have lodged this false case only to exert

pressure on the appellants for allowing them to build a hut on the

land belonging to the appellants. It was submitted that for the

same incident, the appellants' side had instituted Sanhoulla PS

Case No. 113 of 2020, earlier in time, and there has been serious

injuries caused on the side of the appellants. By way of example,

learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to photographs of

injury suffered by appellants no. 1 and 6, which shows deep

wound on their head. It was submitted that on the side of the

informant, there is no injury. Learned counsel submitted that the

appellants have no criminal antecedent. It was submitted that even

otherwise, since there is no allegation that any overt act was done

in public view or in the presence of the public, no offence is made

out under the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel submitted that the

parties have also compromised the matter and a formal

compromise petition has been filed in the Court below in January,

2021. It was submitted that though copy of the compromise

petition is available with learned counsel, but due to inadvertence

could not be brought on record. However, learned counsel read out Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1468 of 2021 dt.17-06-2021

the contents in which it has been stated that the parties have

compromised the matter and do not want to pursue the case.

8. Learned APP submitted that there is allegation of

assault against the appellants.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the appellants be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge III-cum Special

Judge (SC/ST Act) Bhagalpur in Sanhaula PS Case No. 114 of

2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall

be a close relative of the appellants, (ii) that the appellants and the

bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to

good behaviour of the appellants and (iii) that the appellants shall

co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of

the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure

to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the appellants, to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1468 of 2021 dt.17-06-2021

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

appellants.

11. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the

appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T