Anikant Pyarelal Ohdar Vs the State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Sah, Advocate : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. For the Victim : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶19

11/18.04.2026 Both appeal have been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim.

¶21

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 117 of 2025 is directed against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No. 410 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 39 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section 341,504,506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. The case is presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Gumla.

¶22

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 117 of 2025 With

¶23

1

¶24

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2024

¶25

2026:JHHC:11254

¶26

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No. 452 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 39 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section 341,504,506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. The case is presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Gumla.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeal have submitted that appellant- Anikant Pyarelal Ohdar is the seller and appellant- Vivekanand Ohdar is the purchaser of the disputed land. It has been further submitted that although the grant of anticipatory bail is barred under section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 but still appeal have been filed since the dispute is purely civil in nature between both the parties and Section under the SC/ST Act has been added up. For that purpose learned counsel for the appellants have drawn attention of this Court to para 5 and 6 of the complaint petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State and respondent no.2- victim has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that there is an offence of abuse by the accused person towards the complainant- victim and as such the offence under the SC/ST Act is made out and further Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record it appears that there is a land dispute between the parties which is civil in nature and as such, considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020(10) SCC 710 , this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

¶30

Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks

¶31

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 117 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2024

¶32

2

¶33

2026:JHHC:11254

¶34

from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Gumla in connection with Complaint Case No. 39 of 2021 on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellants will submit self-attested photo copy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile number before the learned trial court which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the Court.

¶35

In the result, both appeals are allowed.

¶36

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶37

18.04.2026 A. Mohanty/Raja Uploaded //2026

¶38

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 117 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 859 of 2024

¶39

3

Anikant Pyarelal Ohdar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anikant Pyarelal Ohdar 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

Rupesh Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bablu Yadav Alias Bablu Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand