Sahdeo Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand 2. Shanti Devi, W/o Vijay Das, aged about 48 years, R/o Bigha, P.O. Fulwariya, P.S. Nawalshahi, DistrictKoderma-825418, Jharkhand ….. Respondent

¶11

For the Appellant	: Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Adv.
	Ms. Mrinalini A. Tete, Adv.
	Ms. Shobha G.Lakra, Adv.
For the State	: Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha Addl. PP
For the Respondent No. 2	: Ms. Neha Pandey, A.C.

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶15

This appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in ABP No. 313 of 2024 arising out of Protest-cum- Complaint (SC/ST) Case no. of 09 of 2023 whereby learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants as not maintainable in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶16

1

¶17

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2024

¶18

[ 2026:JHHC:8357 ]

¶19

The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants not being members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, interfered with the enjoyment of the rights of the complainant, in respect of her property and then abused her by using her caste name in a place within the public view. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC and Sections 3(1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶20

They appellants filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail but the same was rejected by the learned Special Judge by holding that since the offence punishable under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 made out against the appellant; hence, in view of the bar under section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants are not entitled to anticipatory bail and rejected the said petition.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order taking cognizance is bad in law. It is next submitted that the allegations made against the appellants are false, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this appeal be allowed.

¶22

Learned Addl. PP and learned Amicus Curiae vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that the undisputed fact remains that learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and on the basis of the allegations made in the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the said offences are made out. So, once the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no illegality has been committed by learned

¶23

2

¶24

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2024

¶25

[ 2026:JHHC:8357 ]

¶26

Special Judge in not granting the privilege of anticipatory bail an exercise of power under Section 438 of CrPC. It is lastly submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that since the order by which learned Special Judge, has found prima facie case is not under challenge in this appeal, so in this appeal, it is not open for the appellants to question the legality of the said order and this appeal is confined to the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma by which the anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. The undisputed fact remains that learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma has found the prima facie case inter alia for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On plain reading of Protest –cumComplaint Petition, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Inquiry Witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the same also indicates commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellants.

¶28

Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeI, Koderma in rejecting the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶29