Rajendra Prasad vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Anant Bijay Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The case of the prosecution is one Sri Narayan Vigyan Prabhakar gave a written report Officer-In-Charge of Dhansar police station that departmental inquiry have ordered which was conducted by the D.D.C. From the allegation it appears that compensation award of land acquired of members of Scheduled Tribe was mis-appropriated.

Eight matters was investigated and detail description has been given. It was found that money was mis-appropriated and the case was instituted under order dated 17.03.2016 case diary was called for. It has been received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2012(8) SCC 795 paragraph 9 and 10 which reads as follows:-

The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Dr. R.K. Sangwan and Anr. v. State, 2009 (112) DRJ 473 (DB) and in Crl. M.C. No. 3866 of 2008 and Cr. M.C. No. 1222 of 2009 titled M.A. Rashid v. Gopal Chandra decided on 23.03.2012 and a decision of the Orissa High Court in Ramesh Prasad Bhanja and Ors. v. State of Orissa, 1996 Cri. L.J. 2743, submitted that in spite of the specific bar under Section 438 of the Code, the Courts have granted anticipatory bail to the accused who were charged under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. and submitted that no case under Section 3(i)(v) and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act is made out against this petitioner as only allegation is that the members of the scheduled tribe have been deprived of their right of compensation.

This fact was not controverted by the learned A.P.P, hence it was submitted that in view of the Hon''ble Supreme Court judgment anticipatory bail is maintainable.

It was further submitted that from the impugned order it transpires that one Srimati Aruna Sinha has mortgaged the property and taken a loan of Rs. 42 lacs from Axis Bank and out of the said amount she had paid a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs towards part consideration of sale amount transferred by cheque to the petitioner. It was further submitted that petitioner is not Government servant and further other accused Uday Kant Pathak have been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 10043 of 2015 by this court. It has also been submitted that case of the petitioner stands of better footing and I.O has not been any investigation before the competent Court praying for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. on the other produced the case diary it appears that original case diary in para 373, 474 and 477 petitioner used to visit the land acquisition officer and he is employee of C.C.L save and except there is no other material against the petitioner.

Perused the records.

In the fact and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within two weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1793 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and other conditions that one of the bailors shall be relative of the petitioner.