Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1878 (JHR)

Surendra Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-19

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of rejection of anticipatory bail dated 01.02.2019 in SC/ST Case No. 80 of 2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, wherein cognizance of offence under Sections 323/341/504/506 and under Section 3(g) SC/ST (POA)Act, now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that in the instant case cognizance has been taken under Sections 323/341/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that so far as allegation under Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same are bailable in nature and the only hindrance is the allegation under Section 3 1(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Counsel submits that anticipatory bail petition was filed before the learned court below which was rejected vide order dated 01.02.2019. Counsel further submits that he has filed a report of the Circle Officer which indicates that the place of occurrence is government land. Counsel submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court below and accordingly the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that anticipatory bail itself was not maintainable. He further submits that the property belongs to the opposite party no. 2, however he does not dispute the fact that the Circle Officer has given certain report indicating that the property is a government land. Counsel has also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is paying rent to the State in connection with the property. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that the learned court below has taken cognizance under Sections 323/341/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code are bailable. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code are bailable. So far as offence under Section 3(1)(g) is concerned, the same relates to the wrongful dispossession of member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe from his land and interference with the enjoyment of his rights in connection with the such property. In view of the report which has been annexed along with the present petition which is said to have been given by Circle Officer, this court finds that the appellants have produced some material before this court indicating that the property is a government land. Thus at this stage it appears that prima facie case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out. Accordingly, at this stage, for the purposes of anticipatory bail, stand of the opposite party no. 2 that anticipatory bail itself is not maintainable, is hereby rejected. However, aforesaid observation will have no bearing so far as trial of the case is concerned. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 is hereby set aside and the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender in the court below by 05th of December, 2019 and in the event of their arrest/surrender, the learned Court below is directed to enlarge them on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 80 of 2017, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. and further following conditions:- 7. (i) The appellants shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- each before the learned court below by way of Demand Draft in the name of the complainant on or before 05.12.2019. (ii) The amount deposited by the appellants will be remitted to the complainant by way of victim compensation on proper identification. (iii) The appellants will not annoy or disturb the opposite party no. 2 or his family members in any manner during the pendency of this case. (iv)The appellants are directed to fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 8. (iii) The appellants will not annoy or disturb the opposite party no. 2 or his family members in any manner during the pendency of this case. (iv)The appellants are directed to fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 8. It is made clear that aforesaid amount to be deposited by the appellants by way of victim compensation to the opposite party no. 2 will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.