Upadhya Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 06.06.2023 passed in Ramna P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(z) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder, the anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶16

As per the FIR, informant Jaimurti Devi was living in her house situated at Village Korga, Post Marwania PS Ramna at Garhwa. It is alleged that on 06.03.2023 while they were constructing their house over their land, all these appellants variously armed with lathi and danda started assaulting them. In the said assault, Upadhya Yadav gave a spade blow to Mahendra Ram over his head resulting in serious injury and he was later on admitted in Sadar Hospital, Garhwa for treatment. It is also alleged that the accused persons called her by her caste name and abused and threatened to set her house on fire.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question was purchased by appellant nos. 5 and 7 by registered sale deed in 2015 and after said purchase, it had been duly mutated in their name. The informant party were making claim over the said land without any document of title and

¶18

1

¶19

possession. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated between the appellants and informant regarding which Misc. Case No. 170 of 2017 was initiated and prohibitory order was passed on 09.05.2017 against the informant party (Annexure-3). The informant party did not obey the order and started construction of house regarding which an informatory petition was filed by Surendra Yadav on 04.03.2023 before the court of ACJM, Nagar Untari. It is further submitted that the informant variously armed with weapon started construction resulting in incidence regarding which Ramna P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 379, 504, 509 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the informant side.

¶20

The entire family members of the appellants have been implicated including the senior citizens and female members. In any case, it was a case of free fight for which Section 149 of Indian Penal Code will not apply.

¶21

The offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not apply as it was a land dispute in view of the ratio as laid down in Ramawatar v. State of M.P. , (2022) 13 SCC 635 .

¶22

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that all the appellants have been named in the FIR and in order to grab the landed property, on which the informant party was in settled possession, the appellants attacked them resulting in grievous injury on the vital part of the body of husband of the informant namely Mahendra Ram. They also abused them by calling their caste name in public view. The anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶23

Having considered the submissions advanced, it appears that the incidence took place on land dispute regarding which the parties were on litigating term and prohibitory order was passed against the informant party. There was case and counter case and therefore it appears to be a case of free fight, therefore Section 149 of Indian Penal Code will not apply.

¶24

Under the aforesaid fact and circumstance and in view of direct allegation against appellant no. 1- Upadhya Yadav of causing grievous injury on the vital part of body of Mahendra Ram, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby

¶25

2

¶26

rejected. Appellant no. 1 is directed to surrender before the Court below within three weeks of the order.

¶27

So far appellant nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below.

¶28

Impugned order is set aside accordingly. Criminal appeal is partly allowed.

¶29

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶30

AKT/Satendra

¶31

Uploaded

¶32

3

Upadhya Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upadhya Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nandlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Choudhary And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chhutan Mahato Vs Govind Mahato and Ors.

Binay Krishna Saha And Anr. Vs Laxmi Devi