Kishore Chandra Yadav v. Diku Ram Manjhi

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant For the State For the victim : Mr. S.K. Sah, Adv. : Mr. S.D. Munda, APP : Mr. S.B. Deo, Adv. .... .… Appellant .... Respondents 07/21.09.2022 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, counsel for the victim and learned counsel for the State. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Seraikella in A.B.P. No.254 of 2021 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.25 of 2021, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. The appellant has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail although the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act.

It has been alleged that the victim and this appellant are on litigating term and there is land dispute between the parties. The present case has been lodged, making allegation that this appellant was making construction over a piece of land and this victim has gone there for stopping it and claimed that this land belongs to somebody else known to the appellant and in that course, abusive language has been used. Innocence has been claimed by the counsel for the appellant and by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, it has been submitted that if there is a land dispute between the parties, bar of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. Act is not applicable and the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be extended to the accused. Further the appellant is not the aggressor rather victim is aggressor. On the above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that abusive language has been used in the public place and as such, offence of atrocities is made out and bar of Section 18 is applicable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged victim has gone to the site of the construction, which does not belong to the victim. Further, there is land dispute between the parties. Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant, above named. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl.