Allowed

Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Sah v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Oct 2022CR. APP (SJ)/2148/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged caste-based abuse and property damage. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order and granting bail with conditions under Cr.P.C. 438(2).

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing anticipatory bail was set aside. The appellants were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each.

Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Sah Vs the State of Bihar — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2148 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

MANOJ SAH @ MANOJ KUMAR SAH S/O LATE ARJUN SAH R/O VILLAGE-BHAUA, P.S-PATORI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR

¶5

RANJIT SAH @ RANJIT KUMAR SAH @ RANJIT KUER SAH S/O LATE ARJUN SAH R/O VILLAGE-BHAUA, P.S-PATORI, DISTRICTSAMASTIPUR

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶9

SUNDESHWAR DAS S/O LATE NAGDEO DAS R/O VILLAGEBHAUA, P.S-PATORI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the State : Mrs.Usha Kumari No.1, Spl.P.P. For the Respondent No.2: None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 13-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

Vide order dated 26.03.2022, notice was issued to respondent no.2, who has filed appearance in this case through his counsel but today nobody appears on his behalf.

¶15

This is an appeal under section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.02.2021, passed by learned 1^st Additional

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2148 of 2021(5) dt.13-10-2022 2/3

¶17

Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Samastipur, in connection with Complaint Case No.219 of 2019, registered under sections 323, 341, 427, 504 of the IPC and sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w) of the SC and ST Act.

¶18

Allegedly, all the FIR named accused persons including the appellants entered into the house of informant and abused him by caste name, damaged his hut and disconnected the electricity supply.

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. Appellants has been falsely implicated in the case with frivolous allegation. It is submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties. The said civil dispute was verified by the local C.O. Patori and the C.O. in his enquiry has found that contents of the complaint case is absolutely false and fabricated and complainant is trying to capture the land of appellant as the ancestors of the complainant have already executed sale deed in favour of mother of appellant. It is submitted further submitted that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants as the occurrence is not said to have taken place in the public view. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

¶20

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2148 of 2021(5) dt.13-10-2022 3/3

¶21

of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, it is submitted that if there is a land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Appellants have no criminal antecedent.

¶22

Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST), Samastipur, in connection with Complaint Case No.219 of 2019, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

¶24

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶25

pallavi/-

¶26

U T

Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Sah v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Sah v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithu Yadav @ Avinash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Pradhan @ Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Umesh Tanti Vs The State of Bihar

Poonam Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Kumar Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Raghucharan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar