Dismissed

Mithilesh Chaurasiya v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Oct 2022Cr.A(SJ)/41/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appellant's challenge to a bail rejection order. The court held that although the dispute involved land, the FIR allegations clearly suggested commission of atrocities under the SC/ST Act, attracting the bar under Section 18, thereby making the anticipatory bail application unmaintainable.

What did the court decide?

The present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed; the order of the Additional Judicial Commissioner is affirmed.

Mithilesh Chaurasiya Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2021

¶2

¶3

Mithilesh Chaurasiya …. …. Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kamal Oraon …. …. Respondents

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Sujay Dayal, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. For the Res. No.2 Ms. Archana Kri. Singh, A.C. ----

¶10

09/Dated: 19^th October, 2022

¶11

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and learned amicus curiae.

¶13

3. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 in A.B.P. No.2453 of 2020 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.84 of 2020, registered for the offence under Sections 467/468/470/471/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(s)(g) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The case is presently pending in the court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIIcum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi.

¶14

4. It appears that the FIR is dated 23.10.2020 but till date investigation has not been completed as informed by the learned APP.

¶15

5. Let this order be sent to the Home Secretary, Jharkhand for his information and necessary action.

¶16

6. It appears that the FIR has been lodged against this appellant for assault and abusement and also for preparing false documents for grabbing the land belonging to the scheduled tribe community.

¶17

7. Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the cause of dispute is the land and as such bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is not applicable and for this

¶18

purpose reference has been made to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (10) Supreme Court Cases 710 in the case of Hitesh Verma versus State of Uttrakhand & Anr.

¶19

8. Further, it has been submitted that the allegation of abusement is against the other co-accused and not against this appellant. He is merely a labourer who was present at the site. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

¶20

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned amicus curiae have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the allegation clearly suggests that commission of atrocities as defined under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Once offence is made out, the bar of section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act gets attracted and the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. On the above basis, the prayer for anticipatory bail has been objected.

¶21

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that cause of dispute is land but the allegation made in the FIR clearly suggests the commission of atrocities as defined under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Since, the offence is made out, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order accordingly, the present criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

¶22

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶23

Amar/-

¶24

Mithilesh Chaurasiya v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Chaurasiya 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

Gopal Prasad Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Labour Employment and Training

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Through Its Senior Manager Priya Ranjan Sinha Vs Ramu Mochi And Anr.

The Management of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director Anil Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khublal Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mayank Kumar Bishwkarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Alias Manesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand