Manik Chandra Mohanty And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. K.S. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants along with Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate.

Heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

This petition has been filed for the following relief:

“The instant Criminal Appeal is being directed against order dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge â€" I â€

cum â€" Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No.654/2019 whereby and whereunder the anticipatory bail application

preferred by the petitioners in connection with SC/ST Case No.24 of 2019, for the offence committed under Section 448, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C

& Sec. 3 (f) (g) (r) (s) of Prevention of SC/ST (POA) Act, now the case is pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge â€" I â€

cum â€" Special Judge SC/ST, (POA) Act, Jamshedpur.â€​

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants by

referring to Section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further submits that upon perusal of the

complaint petition, it appears that there are four named accused including one Mahadev Mohanty. The learned counsel submits that Mahadev

Mohanty, has expired as back as on 25.08.2002 and this is apparent from the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants wherein they have

annexed certificate issued by the Panchyat Samiti of the concerned area indicating that Mahadev Mohanty, had expired on 25.08.2002, although, the

counsel for the appellants does not dispute that this is not the death certificate as issued by the government. The learned counsel further submits that

Mahadev Mohanty has already expired and that is why there are only three appellants before this Court.

The learned counsel further submits that as per the allegation made in the complaint petition, the complainant has claimed to be owner of the Khata

No.273; Plot No.1160, 1163, 1164, Khata No.274; Plot No.1165, 1166 and Khata No.275, Plot No.1158, 1159, 1161 and 1162, a total seven bighas of

agricultural land. It is the case of the complaint that the present appellants had entered into his property and tried to interfere in the agriculture

operation of the complainant and also abused the complainant in the course of such interference. The learned counsel submits that the property, which

has been referred to in the complaint petition belongs to the present appellants and the appellants have filed land verification certificate dated

20.02.2018 wherein it has been certified by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur that the jamabandi of the aforesaid property is running in the name of the

appellants and their family members. The learned counsel submits that in such a situation, it is apparent that the present case has been instituted by the

complainant with a malafide intention and the entire proceeding is an abuse of the process of law. He submits that in such circumstances, the

anticipatory bail application of the appellants cannot be said to be not maintainable and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. He further submits

that for the ends of justice, the appellants be granted anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that as per the complaint petition, there are serious allegations against the

appellants. So far as accused no.4 namely Mahadev Mohanty is concerned, he submits that he has nothing to say at this point of time. He further

submits that it appears that there is land dispute between the parties. The learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the

learned court below has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail application as not maintainable.

The learned counsel for the State also adopts the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, which has been produced by the appellants before

this Court, this Court, at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, finds that there appears to be certain land dispute between the parties and it

also appears that the accused no.4 appears to have expired as back as in the year 2002 although he has been made accused in the present case. It

also appears that the property is standing in Register-II in the name of the family members of the appellants. This Court is of the considered view that

the complainant appears to be the aggressor. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order rejecting the

anticipatory bail of the appellants is fit to be set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.05.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge â€" 1st â€" cum â€" Special, Judge, SC/ST

(POA) Act, Jamshedpur in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.654 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The appellants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory

bail upon surrender or arrest and in the event of their arrest/surrender, the learned court below is directed to enlarge the appellants on bail upon

furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge â€" 1 â€" cum â€" Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Jamshedpur in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.654 of 2019, in connection with

S.C./S.T. Case No.24/2019, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C with further conditions as follows:

i) The appellants would cooperate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

ii) The appellants will submit attested copies of their Aadhar card and their phone numbers before the court below at the time of furnishing bail bonds,

which they will not change during the pendency of the appeal without permission of this Court.

iii) The appellants would deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each before the learned court below. It is made clear that the deposit of this amount will not

prejudice the case of the appellants in any manner. The said amount be released in favour of the opposite party no.2 after due identification, by way of

victim compensation and the same will be subject to the final result of the case before the learned court below.

iv) The appellants would not disturb or annoy the opposite party no.2 or his family members in any manner what so ever.

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.