Md. Muslim vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent State.

By order dated 8.7.2024 notices were issued upon the respondent no.2 and the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that notice has already been served upon the informant, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2/ informant and in view of that in absence of the respondent no.2, this appeal is being heard.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.2079 of 2023 in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.267 of 2023 for offences under section 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506 IPC and under section 3(1) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the anticipatory bail petition preferred on behalf of the appellants has been rejected by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner II Cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi and the case is pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner II Cum Special Judge at Ranchi.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the dispute is there with regard to land and this fact has also been disclosed in the F.I.R. He submits that falsely the appellants have been implicated under the SC/ST  (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and from the F.I.R it is not disclosed that the said incident took place in ‘public view’.

Learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer on the ground that allegations are there.

Looking to the contents of the FIR, it transpires that there is dispute with regard to land and the plot number as well as khata number have been disclosed in the FIR itself and if such a situation is there, the case of the appellants is covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. If a prima-facie case is not made out under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the anticipatory bail can be maintained, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, (2024) INSC 625, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants, and as such, the appellants, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned court concerned within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the appellants, above named, shall be released on bail, on 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 Additional Judicial Commissioner II Cum Special Judge at Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.267 of 2023, subject to the conditions that appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or undue influence to the prosecution witnesses and the appellants shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date given to them by the said learned court till the disposal of the trial.

This appeal is allowed and disposed of, and the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.2079 of 2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner II Cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi is hereby set-aside.

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.