Shibu Mahto Alias Shivshankar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 894 of 2023

¶2

¶3

1. Shibu Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Mahto, aged about 46 years, S/o Birasay Mahto, R/o Vakhari Tola, Nawadih, Kundrukala, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶4

Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 30 years, S/o Bittu Mahto, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Kundrukala, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶5

Dhaneshwar Mahto, aged about 50 years, S/o Jatru Mahto, R/o Chamari Dera, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand ... ... Appellants Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Parmeshwar Karmali, S/o Late Meghu Karmali, R/o Barki Dundi, Chamaridera, Mandu, Kujju, P.O & P.S. Mandu, District, Ramgarh. …… Respondents -----

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶9

-------For the Appellants : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, APP --------

¶10

Order No. 08/ Dated: 11^th March, 2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶12

The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, Ramgarh in A.B.P. No.732 of 2023, by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) Case No.08 of 2021 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 & 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the gist of the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R is that there was a land property dispute between the parties and altercation took place between them and the informant has made an allegations against 14 named and other accused persons for using abusive languages by taking the name of their caste and insulting them and the informant had also sustained injuries.

¶14

It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the real dispute between the parties is with respect to the land and not

¶15

because of the informant belonging to SC/ST community and therefore it is prayed on behalf of the appellants that no offence under SC/ST Act is substantiated and reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants in the case of “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710.

¶16

Further, it has been pointed out that the injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the injured is simple in nature as evident from para 23 of the case diary.

¶17

It has Further been pointed out that similarly situated coaccused persons namely, Meghnath Mahto, Charka Mahto, Ram Bittu Ram in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.894 of 2022 vide order dated 14.03.2023 have been enlarged on regular bail by the coordinate bench of this Court and these appellants have prayed for anticipatory bail in view of the ratio of case laws “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”(supra), where no offence of SC/T Act is made out on the face of it and therefore, there is no bar for anticipatory bail in the light of the said Hon’ble Apex Court rulings.

¶18

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and stated that there was a clear cut case under SC/ST Act although he did not controvert this fact that the entire dispute is because of the landed property of Khata No.49, Plot No.697 as emanating from the contents of the F.I.R. itself and also did not controvert this fact that there is no specific allegation against these appellants and all the allegations are omnibus and general in nature.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case including the case diary.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellants on bail in anticipation of their arrests or surrender.

¶21

Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.732 of 2023 in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) Case No.08 of

¶22

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 894 of 2023

¶23

2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶24

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶25

In consequence thereof, the appellants named above are directed to be released on bail in apprehension of their arrests or surrender within 15 days on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Vacation Judge, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) Case No.08 of 2021 subject to the condition that the appellants will cooperate in the investigation as well as in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of

¶27

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶28

Basant/S.Das

¶29

3

¶30

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 894 of 2023

Shibu Mahto Alias Shivshankar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu Mahto Alias Shivshankar Mahto 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

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Mandal @ Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikash Kumar Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Pathak Alias Dilip Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hemant Kumar Alias Hemant Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand