Allowed

Bimlesh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2022Cr.A(SJ)/50/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand allowed an appeal under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The court held that a serious land dispute between the parties makes Section 18's bar on bail inapplicable. Appellants were directed to surrender for bail.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to surrender for bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with sureties, under conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Bimlesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.50 of 2022

¶3

¶4

1. Bimlesh Kumar Yadav @ Bimlesh Yadav

¶5

2. Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Ajit Yadav

¶6

3. Akhilesh Yadav

¶7

4. Basant Kumar Yadav @ Basant Yadav …. …. Appellants Versus

¶8

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2. Rajanti Devi …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---For the Appellantss : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Adv.

¶10

¶11

08/Dated: 07^th July, 2022

¶12

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

¶13

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the victim.

¶14

3. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 in A.B.P. No.1117 of 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.195 of 2020, registered for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 323, 325, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(f)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The case is presently pending in the court of the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.

¶15

4. It has been alleged that this appellants in order to grab the land of the victim has assaulted and snatched the silver chain and some money etc.

¶16

5. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that it is nothing but misuse of the protective provision of the SC/ST (POA) Act. There is a land dispute between the parties. The reason for land dispute is that both the parties had purchased the land from the same person.

¶17

6. Para-8 of the Criminal Revision No.33 of 2020 in order dated 29.11.2021 is quoted herein below:-

¶18

“8. On the rival submission of the counsel of the respective parties I have perused the case of the parties and found the following admitted facts:-

¶19

I. Both parties have purchased the land in question from one title holder. II. Land of both parties are adjacent to each other. III. Their name have already been mutated with respect to purchased land in the Demand Register.”

¶20

7. Further, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that he has approached the authorities for demarcation of the land but that has not been allowed by the victim party. There are various litigations between the parties. In fact, to settle the land dispute the SC/ST (POA) Act has been used.

¶21

By referring the judgment 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. , it has been submitted that in such a situation the bar of Section 18 is not applicable.

¶22

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and the victim have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the victim that she has been abused and assaulted by entering into the house of the victim and as such offence of SC/ST (POA) Act is made and bar of Section 18 is applicable.

¶23

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, prima facie it appears that more ‘ rakba ’ has been sold by the seller of the land. The purchaser has purchased more than what exist. Thus, there is a serious land dispute between the parties.

¶24

10. Be as it may, since there is serious land dispute between the parties, the appellants, above named, 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 his 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 Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No.195 of 2020 on the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Further, the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhaar Cards and also submit their mobile numbers 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.

¶25

11. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶27

Amar/-

¶28

Bimlesh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimlesh Kumar Yadav 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

Indradev Yadav Alias Indardev Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tahir Alias Tahir Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Margina Bibi Morgina Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guddu Saw Alias Guddu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotu Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Aashif Alias MD Asif Vs the State of Jharkhand