Appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail in delay offence under SC/ST Act. Court allowed appeal setting aside refusal order, granting bail with bond and sureties subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC._Given land dispute and injuries._
Impugned order set aside; appellants enlarged on bail with bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.592 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Nawada
======================================================
... ... Appellants
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Madhu Prasun For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL ORDER
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
Office pointed out that though the notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no. 2 but nobody has appeared on his behalf.
This is an appeal under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the SC/ST Act), against the refusal of prayer of anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.592 of 2022(4) dt.20-02-2023 2/3
(SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act)-cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge First, Nawada, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 19 of 2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 308, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Allegation against the appellants is that they abused the informant taking caste name and also assaulted her and her sister-in-law. There is further allegation that one Ram Prasad hit her father-in-law head by stick due to which his head was injured.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. He submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of slating the informant in the specific name of his caste. He submits that there is admitted land dispute between the parties. He submits that there is case and counter case between the parties in which both sides sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another reported
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.592 of 2022(4) dt.20-02-2023 3/3
in 2020 (10) SCC 710 , if there is land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Appellants have got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.
Learned Spl. PP for the State opposes payer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that both the sides have sustained grievous injury and there is admitted land dispute, let the above named appellants, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/(Rupeees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act)-cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge First, Nawada, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 19 of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
anand/- U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail is maintainable where there is an admitted land dispute between parties and grievous injuries have occurred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & AnotherExplained¶26
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saviya Devi @ Sabiya Devi W/O Sanjay Yadav
Sanjay Yadav S/O Ganga Yadav
Kailash Prasad @ Kailash Mahto S/O Late Raghu Prasad @ Raghu Mahto
Ramprasad Prasad @ Ram Prasad S/O Kailash Prasad
Pramod Prasad @ Pramod Kumar Suman S/O Kailash Prasad
State Of Bihar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
