Prahlad Chandra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 22.02.2025 passed in ABP No.231 of 2025 by Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih by which the anticipatory bail application preferred by the appellants has been rejected in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.15 /2023, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 51 of 2023 , instituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act and is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih.

¶14

The case of the Informant - complainant Nakul Ravidas, in brief, is that the grand-father Late Kunjo Chamar had a piece of land under khata no.16, plot no.539, area 08 decimals in survey khatiyan.The successors of Late Kunjo Chamar, were in possession of the aforesaid land. However, on 29/08/2021 at about 10:00 a.m., the accused persons as named in the complaint petition, came armed with weapons

¶15

1

¶16

( 2025:JHHC:23169 )

¶17

and started digging the foundation over the land with Gaita and spade and they were fencing the land forcibly. Thereafter, the complainant along with the witnesses reached at the place of occurrence and requested them to stop the work but they told that they have purchased the land from his brother and then the complainant asked for the papers. Thereafter, the accused persons abused him by calling his caste name and he was humiliated, in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police but the police did not take any action against them and they reported the matter before the Anchal Adhikari, Bengabad. Then the Anchal Adhikari, Bengabad issued notice to the accused persons asking for papers and a proceeding u/s 144 Cr. P. C. was drawn. In the meantime, the police who registered an F.I.R. bearing SC/ST P.S. Case No.15/2023, submitted final form stating therein that it is a civil dispute. Then the complainant filed a protest -cum- complaint petition.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as learned counsel for the Informant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants have committed no offence. It is submitted that the Informant lodged the FIR on 27.03.2023 and the police had submitted final form but on the basis of protest petition filed by the Complainant, the learned Court below has taken cognizance . It is submitted that the Appellant No. 1 Prahalad Chandra Yadav is aged about 81 years old, appellant No. 2 Dileep Kaushal @ Dileep Kumar Kaushal is State Tax Officer, Dhanbad and Appellant No. 3 Ranjeet Yadav @

¶20

2

¶21

( 2025:JHHC:23169 )

¶22

Ranjeet Kumar Kaushal is a Post Graduate Teacher, in Government High School. It is submitted that the Informant and several others had filed the Original Suit No. 416 of 2022 against the appellants and several other persons. It is submitted that there is no criminal antecedent against the appellants and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶23

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail. It is submitted that the appellants are named in the FIR for abusing the Informant on the name of his Caste and hence the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has further submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellants for abusing the Informant in public in the name of his caste. It is submitted that appellants have got land executed from his brothers from the share of the Informant. It is submitted that the Informant –complainant has filed the Title Suit and the protest petition against the appellants for taking excess land of the complainant and abusing the complainant in the name of his caste. It is submitted that the complainant had examined several inquiry witnesses i.e. E.W. 1 Thakur Das , E.W. 2 Raju Das, E.W. 3 Pappu Kumar Das and E.W. 4 Khublal Das and who have fully supported the case of the Informant and hence the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

¶25

Perused the Records and considered the submissions of both the sides.

¶26

3

¶27

( 2025:JHHC:23169 )

¶28

It appears that the Informant had lodged FIR against the appellants on 27.03.2023 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶29

Thereafter the police had submitted final form in favour of the appellants on 06.05.2023 which is enclosed as Annexure -2 and thereafter the complainant had filed protest -cum- complaint petition against the appellants .

¶30

Thereafter the learned Court below after examination the complainant Solemn Affirmation information , recorded the statement of the witnesses E.W. 1 Thakur Das , E.W. 2 Raju Das, E.W. 3 Pappu Kumar Das and E.W. 4 Khublal Das and the cognizance taken the appellants on 19.12.2024.

¶31

It appears that the land is in the name of the appellant No. 1 Prahlad Chandra Yadav.

¶32

It further appears that the Informant had earlier filed the Original Suit No. 416 of 2022 in the year 2022 against the appellants and others including his own cousin brother Hari Das, Baldeo Das , Bhikhari Das and Mahendra Das and also one Sugiya Das ( relative of the Complainant ) having share in the lands.

¶33

From perusal of the complaint petition which is pending before the learned Special Judge , Junior Division, Giridih, it appears that neither in the FIR nor in the complaint petition, the Complainant has not disclosed about the excess area in favour of the appellant No. 1 by the brothers of the Informant.

¶34

It appears that prior to lodging of the FIR on 15.03.2023 the Informant had already instituted Original Suit No. 416 of 2022 against the appellants and several others in

¶35

4

¶36

( 2025:JHHC:23169 )

¶37

the year 2022 before the learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division) at Giridih and which is now pending of the Court of the learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division) -VIII, Giridih . 15. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed in ABP No.231 of 2025 by Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.15 /2023, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 51 of 2023 is set aside. 16. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants namely Prahlad Chandra Yadav, Dileep Kaushal @ Dileep Kumar Kaushal and Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar Kaushal are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six (06) weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the appellants are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction by Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih or his Successor Court in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.15 /2023, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 51 of 2023 . 17. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.265 of 2025 is allowed.

¶38

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶39

Bibha/

¶40

5

Prahlad Chandra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Chandra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaydeo Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The S P Cbi Acb Ranchi And Ors.

Jinendra Kumar Jain Alias Jainandra Kr.Jain Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Baby Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kyamuddin Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand