Allowed

Arti Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2021Cr.A(SJ)/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order. The court held that a bona fide land dispute justifies invoking the right to bail and preventing misuse of the SC/ST Act for persecution, awarding anticipatory bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.10.2020 setting aside anticipatory bail is quashed and bail granted in connection with SC/ST Case No.8A of 2020.

Arti Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.18 of 2021

¶2

---

¶3

Aarti Sharma @ Arti Sharma … … Appellant Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand 2. Jorawar Ram … … Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶6

--- For the Appellant : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P. For the Res. No.2 : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Adv. ---

¶7

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

¶8

---

¶9

07/13.08.2021: The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶10

2. Heard Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

¶11

3. The criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.10.2020 in Misc. Cri. Application No.301 of 2020 in SC/ST Case No.8A of 2020 (arising out of Palamau SC/ST P.S. Case No.13 of 2018) passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at Daltongaj, registered for the offence u/s Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)(x)(xv)(s)(g) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.

¶12

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, in spite of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, making reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2020)10 SCC 710 in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttrakhand & Anr is maintainable. There is dispute between the parties for a piece of land being Khata No.132 Plot Nos.1091 and 1092 having 66 decimal of land situated in village Sahpur, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.-Palamau. For the said land there was a title suit being Title Suit No.26 of 2001 pending between the parties and the trial court has given decree in favour of the

¶13

¶14

present appellant and it has been reversed in the first appeal. Second Appeal being S.A. No.72 of 2012 has been admitted by framing substantial question of law vide order dated 09.07.2019 by the Second Appellate Court. It has further been submitted that for the same piece of land, criminal case has been lodged making the same allegation in which the appellant has been acquitted by the trial court. The judgment of the trial court passed in Comp. Case No.1062 of 2012/TR No.657 of 2020 and in SC/ST Case No.04 of 2016 have been annexed.

¶15

5. On the strength of above cases, it has been submitted that the alleged victim, who is a political person, is trying to create extra pressure by misusing the provision of SC/ST Act to defeat the civil rights of the appellant. Since there is civil disputes between the parties and the appellant is also fighting for civil rights over a piece of land and as such, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not applicable as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra).

¶16

On the above facts, it has been argued that the present appeal is maintainable and the appellant is entitled for the anticipatory bail.

¶17

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that only on the ground that the accused has been acquitted in the earlier criminal case by the trial court does not mean that the present case is false. Further, the civil dispute does not mean that criminal case is not permissible. The victim has been abused in a public view and as such the offence under Section SC/ST Act has been committed and the Bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable and the present anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

¶18

7. Having regard to the learned counsel for parties and on perusing the records, it appears that there is various litigations i.e. Civil and Criminal both between the parties. The appellants were acquitted in criminal cases which has been annexed as Annexure-2. Further, it appears that for the same piece of land as mentioned in the FIR itself, the second appeal is pending before this Court as the same has been admitted after framing of the substantial question of law. The entire facts suggest that there a bona fide land dispute between the parties over a piece of land and as such, making of false allegation for creating extra

¶19

¶20

pressure by misusing the SC/ST Act cannot be ruled out. The SC/ST (POA) Act gives right to the members of the SC/ST community to prosecute the perpetrator of crime, but at the same time it cannot be used for persecution.

¶21

8. Considering the entire material on records and in view of above discussion, this court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants above named. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with SC/ST Case No.8A of 2020 (arising out of Palamau SC/ST P.S. Case No.13 of 2018), subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. and also on the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

¶22

9. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.10.2020 in Misc. Cri. Application No.301 of 2020 in SC/ST Case No.8A of 2020 (arising out of Palamau SC/ST P.S. Case No.13 of 2018) is, hereby, set aside.

¶23

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶24

Amar/-

Arti Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Sharma 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

Anand Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rupesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Mandal Alias Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramjanam Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

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

Kalsi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand