Draupadi Devi v. The State of Jharkhand

---------- : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.PP : Mr. Shiv Shankar Jee, Advocate ----------- 07/Dated:16th October, 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated

20.12.2024 passed by Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.2031 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No.967 of 2016 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Spl.PP for the State and Mr. Shiv Shankar Jee, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. It is submitted that the appellants are in possession of their own 1 land which had been purchased by one Chhedi Saw (i.e. the husband of the Appellant No.1) in the year 1995 by registered sale deed dated 18.04.1995 and by which the complainant had executed sale deed in favour of Chhedi Saw having Khata No.97, Plot No.333 and 343, Area 10 decimals which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 in the supplementary affidavit dated

14.08.2025. It is submitted that the complaint case has been filed in violation of the judgment rendered in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.

It is submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and the appellant are not going to disturb the possession of the complainant on the rest piece of land which is said to be 25 Decimal of land and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Spl.PP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant-Respondent No.2 submitted that this anticipatory bail is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the appellants have abused the complainant in the name of her caste and the appellants and others wanted to grab the land of the complainant, though the complainant had sold ten (10) decimal of land to the husband of the Appellant No.1 on

18.04.1995. It is submitted that the complainant during her Solemn Affirmation and other witnesses examined as E.W-1, E.W-2 and E.W-3 namely Banshi Saw, Raju Saw and Rajesh Rajak have fully supported the case of the complainant that the informant was abused in the name of her caste by the accused persons including the appellants and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 2

Perused the complaint, Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides.

It appears that the complaint case has been filed on

12.07.2016 for the occurrence alleged to have taken place on

11.07.2016 in contravention of the law laid down in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.

It appears that the even the complaint case was filed before the learned C.J.M, which was transferred to the learned S.D.J.M, taking cognizance vide order dated 11.12.2018 under sections 342/323/447/448/504/506 of IPC and ¾ of SC/ST Act read with Section 37 of IPC.

It appears that the complaint had already sold ten (10) decimals of land in the name of Chhedi Saw i.e. the husband of the Appellant No.1 and the father of the Appellant No.2 on

18.04.1995.

Though both the sides have shown rival ambit with regard to the land in question, however, the fact remains that a land dispute has been raised at the instance of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that they desire to remain in their peaceful possession of the land and they are not going to disturb the possession of the complainant over her remaining 25 Decimal of land.

It appears that though the complainant had given certain statements with regard to the appellants but the statement of the Enquiry Witnesses are general and omnibus.

Under the circumstances, the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.2031 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No.967 of 2016, is set aside. 3

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants namely, Draupadi Devi and Jitendra Saw @ Jitendra Kumar Saw are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Manoj Chandra Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in A.B.P. No.2031 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No.967 of 2016.

Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.113 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

However, it will be desirable that both the sides shall remain in possession of their land which has been purchased by the husband of Appellant No.1-Chhedi Saw. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 16.10.2025 Saket/- 4