JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Moti Gope, learned APP for the State and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The aforesaid appeal has been filed being aggrieved vide order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Jamshedpur in Misc. Cr. Appeal No.2577 of 2018, in connection with Birsanagar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.11 of 2018, wherein the prayer for regular bail filed on behalf of the appellants have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the informantrespondent no.2 by converting the civil dispute into a criminal case has roped in the appellants under Section 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C and Section 3(1) (f)/ (g)/ (r)/(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in Birsanagar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.11 of 2018. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the appellants have entered into an agreement with Jano Agnas and her legal heirs, who succeeded in the title suit as per Annexure-3 to the appeal memo. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that offence under Section 3(1) (f)/ (g)/ (r)/(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is not made out nor the Section 41A of the Cr.P.C has been invoked before arresting the appellants. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2014 8 SCC 273 , (2008) 12 SCC 531 (Para-6 & 11), (2011) 11 SCC 259 (Para-4, 5, 9 & 10). Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant are in custody since 05.12.2018 and there is absolutely no criminal antecedents against the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand submits that the appellants being land mafia have created disturbance in the possession of respondent no.2 and from the F.I.R it is quite evident that the appellants have been involved in committing of the aforesaid offence, therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand submits that the appellants being land mafia have created disturbance in the possession of respondent no.2 and from the F.I.R it is quite evident that the appellants have been involved in committing of the aforesaid offence, therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Regard being had to the facts of the case that the appellants are in custody since 05.12.2018 and considering the nature of dispute, above named appellants are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Jamshedpur in connection with Birsanagar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.11 of 2018. 6. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeal stands disposed of.