Allowed

Raghucharan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Oct 2022CR. APP (SJ)/2937/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a preference appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act. Finding a land dispute existed between the appellant family and the informant, the court relied on Hitesh Verma to set aside the lower court's refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail subject to sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount.

Raghucharan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Caste Atrocities | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2937 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2019 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas

¶3

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

¶4

RAGHUCHARAN MAHTO SON OF LATE JANAK MAHTO R/O VILLAGE- TILOKHAR, P.S.- CHUTIA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS

¶5

ASHOK MAHTO SON OF RAGHUCHARAN MAHTO R/O VILLAGETILOKHAR, P.S.- CHUTIA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS

¶6

RAJA MAHTO SON OF RAGHUCHARAN MAHTO R/O VILLAGETILOKHAR, P.S.- CHUTIA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS

¶7

CHITRANJAN MAHTO SON OF RAGHUCHARAN MAHTO R/O VILLAGE- TILOKHAR, P.S.- CHUTIA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS

¶8

PUNAM DEVI WIFE OF RAGHUCHARAN MAHTO R/O VILLAGETILOKHAR, P.S.- CHUTIA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS

¶9

HARI MOHAN DUBEY SON OF LATE DIRGAJ DUBEY R/O VILLAGE- NAUHATTA, P.S.- NAUHATTA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS

¶10

... ... Appellant/s

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar

¶13

Udai Paswan Late Mundrika Paswan R/O village- Tilokhar, P.S.- chutia, District- Rohtas

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P. Mr.Rajani Kant Singh, Adv. ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER

¶17

3 13-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

This is an appeal under section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2937 of 2021(3) dt.13-10-2022 2/4

¶20

refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.03.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Istcum- Special Judge, Sasaram, in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No.39 of 2019, registered under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 341/ 379, 354, 504/506 of the IPC and sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

¶21

Allegedly, all the FIR named accused persons including the appellants came at the door of informant armed with lathidanda and abused him and on objection, they surrounded the informant, his son and wife and assaulted them due to which they sustained injuries. The accused persons threatened them to leave the village.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. Appellants have been falsely implicated in this case with frivolous allegation due to land dispute. It is submitted that appellant no.1 has purchased the land situated in Mauza Tilokhar in the name of his wife from one Grivar Dubey but forcibly the informant and his family members have taken possession of the said land and implicated the entire family members of appellant no.1 in this case. A Title Suit No.5/2017

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2937 of 2021(3) dt.13-10-2022 3/4

¶24

in this regard was earlier filed by the appellant no.1 against the informant. It is submitted that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants as the occurrence has not taken place in the public view. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case 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.

¶25

Learned Spl. PP for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the appellants to abuse the informant by taking caste name.

¶26

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is apparent that there is a land dispute between the parties and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma (supra), I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, 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 District & Sessions

¶28

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2937 of 2021(3) dt.13-10-2022 4/4

¶29

Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No.39 of 2019, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

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

¶31

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶32

pallavi/-

¶33

U T

Raghucharan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghucharan Mahto 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

Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Poonam Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

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