Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail in a case arising from land dispute and complaint under SC/ST Act. Court set aside impugned order and enlarged appellants on bail subject to bond and sureties.
Appellants enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with two sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.67 of 2019
-Versus1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Manoj Das. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate For the State : APP For Respondent no.2: Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate -----
Order No.08 Date: 09.05.2019
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 13th December, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.1435 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No.57 of 2017, registered under Sections 341, 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the appellants’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the informant (respondent no.2). It is further submitted that the appellant no.2-Rukmani Devi and one Nunulal Mahto had purchased a piece of land measuring an area of 59.25 decimals from Brihaspati Choudhary and others on 25th March, 2015 through registered sale deed including 11 decimals of land pertaining to plot no.183 and 2.5 decimals of land pertaining to plot no.184. After purchase, the mutation was done in the name of the appellant no.2 and said Nunulal Mahto and they have been regularly paying rent to the State Government. It is further submitted that the statement of respondent no.2 on his solemn affirmation that though he sold 6 decimals of land to the appellants, yet they are trying to grab rest of his land is completely false, as he has never sold any piece of land to the appellants. Rather in the year 2003, the mother of the respondent no.2, namely, Most. Budhani had sold a piece of land to the father of the appellant no.1, namely, Pokhan Mahto, measuring an area of 6 decimals (3.65 decimals of plot no.183 and 2.35 decimals of plot no.184). It is further submitted that when
-2-
the dispute arose in relation to the said land, the parties were called by the Circle Officer, Bengabad and the Officer-in-charge, Bengabad Police Station vide notice dated 14th November, 2017 to appear on 28th November, 2017. However, instead of appearing before the said authority, the respondent no.2 lodged the present complaint on 27th November, 2017. It is, thus, evident that the respondent no.2 has falsely implicated the appellants in the present case with an intention to harass them. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants and as such they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 while opposing the appellants’ prayer for anticipatory bail submit that it is evident from the solemn affirmation of the respondent no.2 recorded during enquiry by the concerned court below that the appellants are trying to grab the remaining land of the respondent no.2 and, thus, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. As such, the impugned order dated 13th December, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.1435 of 2018 is set aside.
Accordingly, the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks from today, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), each, with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.57 of 2017.
The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving dispute over land and alleged offence under SC/ST Act.
Whether false implication of appellants warrants grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nageshwar Prasad Verma
Rukmani Devi
State of Jharkhand
Manoj Das
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
