Allowed

Antu Chaudhary Alias Puttu Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2021Cr.A(SJ)/82/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail. The court granted bail with conditions, holding that the SC/ST (PoA) Act is not intended to be misused to settle neighbourhood disputes, noting the existence of an underlying land dispute between parties.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was allowed; appellants granted anticipatory bail directed to surrender within four weeks on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

Antu Chaudhary Alias Puttu Choudhary Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 82 of 2021

¶2

....

¶3

Antu Chaudhary @ Puttu Choudhary

¶4

Jaykrishna Chaudhary @ Guddu Choudhary

¶5

Shankar Chaudhary

¶6

Vishwanath Chaudhary

¶7

Akhilesh Chaudhary

¶8

Mukesh Chaudhary

¶9

Sakendra Chaudhary @ Satyendra Chaudhary

¶10

Prameshwar Chaudhary .… Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

Malti Devi .... Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellants : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. V.K.Vashishtha, A.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.

¶15

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

¶16

06/09.08.2021 The present application has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2-the victim.

¶18

This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Garhwa in A.B.P. No.194 of 2021 arising out of Complaint Case No. 66 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 341/ 323/ 354/ 379/ 385/ 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(I)(r) (s)(w)(g) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.

¶19

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that cognizance has been taken on the basis of Complaint Case No.66 of 2019 against these appellants. It has been further submitted that the case of the appellants is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710.

¶20

It has been submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties. Both the parties have their land at the same place and there is dispute of way. For the said purpose, a case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated being Misc. Case No.72 of 2020. These appellants after taking permission has gone to their field which has been objected by this victim and due to this reason a false case has been

¶21

registered. However there is an allegation that while the victim was working on her field, the accused persons came there and abused her by taking her caste name.

¶22

It has been further submitted that since there is land dispute between the parties and for this reason, these appellants have been implicated in the present case. Although, no specific allegation against has been made against these appellants. On above prayer, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.

¶23

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer. Land dispute has not been denied. Since there is an allegation of abuse, the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act gets attracted and as such they do not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that the parties are Khatiyani Raiyat and they have adjacent field to each other. SC/ST (PoA) Act has been introduced for protecting the member of SC/ST and it has not been intended that this protective legislation will be misused to settle the neighbourhood dispute.

¶25

In view of the above discussion and the fact of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants. 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, Garhwa in Complaint Case No. 66 of 2019 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.

¶26

Accordingly, instant criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶28

Shahid/

Antu Chaudhary Alias Puttu Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antu Chaudhary Alias Puttu Choudhary 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

Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Sao Alias Keshav Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sameer Dang Vs the State of Jharkhand

Urmila Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Laxman Prasad Mandal Alias Laxman Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Prasad Singh Alias Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand