Allowed

Bibhash Chandra Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2021Cr.A(SJ)/171/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. Relying on apex court precedent, the court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars its application to private contractors awarded government tenders, even in cases involving land disputes. Consequently, bail was granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to surrender and be enlarged on bail of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties on conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Bibhash Chandra Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 171 of 2019

¶3

....

¶4

Bibhash Chandra Thakur

¶5

Ramanuj Mishra @ Abhay Kumar Mishra .… Appellants Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Ashok Mandal .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Ms. J.Mazumdar, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Niki Sinha, A.P.P. For the Victim : None

¶10

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶11

13/16.08.2021 The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶12

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the

¶13

State.

¶14

On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the victim in spite of filing of vakalatnama.

¶15

This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in A.B.P. No.06 of 2019 in connection with of P.C.R. Case No.672 of 2014 arising out of Sahibganj SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of 2014 (G.R. No.167 of 2014), registered for the offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.

¶16

It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants that as per the allegation, it has been alleged that the present appellants, who are the contractor have constructed a puliya on the ancestral land of the victim in the execution of Government work. Further, the allegation of assault and abuse is also there. The police, after investigation submitted the final form in which a protest petition has been filed which has been registered as P.C.R. Case No.672/2014. After enquiry, the court has taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

¶17

At this stage, the court below is warned that Section 4 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is made for officials and not for private person. Section 4 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act contemplates that “whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

¶18

which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and if the cognizance has to be taken, I.O. and the other officials perform their duty as assigned under the Act.

¶19

It has been further submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants are contractor and after participating in the tender proceeding they have been awarded the work accordingly the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST is not applicable. The dispute is with respect to the ownership of the land and it is between the State and the victim but in the present case the victim has lodged a case against these appellants only and it is nothing but misuse of process of law.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to answer the question as the tendering process has been initiated by the officials of the State and the work order has been awarded to the present appellants. Further the report of the C.O. is against the victim. The police also after investigation has filed final form, and as such, counsel for the State has not opposed the prayer.

¶21

So far as, the victim is concerned, nobody appears on behalf of the victim but from perusal of F.I.R., it appears that the victim is aggrieved due to construction of culvert on the ancestral land of the victim.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that the victim is aggrieved by construction of the culvert over the ancestral land. These appellants are contractor, participated in the tender process and got the government works and the work order.

¶23

In view of the above discussion and considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 this Court finds that bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of the copy of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in A.B.P. No.06 of 2019 in connection with of P.C.R. Case No.672 of 2014 arising out of Sahibganj SC/ST P.S. Case No.09 of 2014 (G.R. No.167 of 2014) on the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., subject to condition that the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhar Card and also submit their mobile number before the learned court below which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

¶24

Accordingly, instant criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶26

Shahid/

Bibhash Chandra Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bibhash Chandra Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjanam Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arti Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Prasad Keshri Alias Raj Kumar Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranvir Bauri Alias Ravi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Murtaza Ansari Alias Lalu Vs the State of Jharkhand