Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Amresh Kumar Pathak, Son of Bishwanath Pathak - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 754 of 2024
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey APP
Absence of specific allegations against the appellant led to a quashing of the rejection of anticipatory bail, highlighting the need for concrete evidence in cases under the SC/ST Act.
Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Anticipatory Bail - The order rejecting anticipatory bail was quashed due to the absence of specific allegations against the appellant and the general nature of claims, which were rooted in a property dispute rather than caste-related motives. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Legal Principles - An anticipatory bail application must consider the nature of allegations; general claims do not suffice to attract stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act. (Paras 4, 8)
(C) Similarity in Cases - Anticipating that similarly situated co-accused were granted bail, fairness necessitated the same treatment for the appellant. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused in a matter linked to a property dispute stemming from a road issue. All allegations were deemed vague and general. Similar co-accused had received anticipatory bail, raising concerns of equality before the law.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of bail was found unjust; the appeal was allowed, quashing the previous order.
Issues: Did the general nature of allegations merit bail under the SC/ST Act provisions? Was fairness in bail application upheld?
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that without specific allegations, the implications of caste-based legislation were not applicable. The necessity for equitable treatment was underscored by the status of co-accused.
Result: The appeal is allowed, directing the release of the appellant on bail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arises from property issue (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations against appellant vs. co-accused bail (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. lack of specific allegations under sc/st act noted. (Para 7) |
| 4. lack of evidence for sc/st application (Para 8) |
| 5. interference in previous court order justified (Para 9) |
| 6. appeal allowed; bail conditions specified (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No.285 of 2024 in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, pending in that Court, whereby, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the gist of the allegation as set out in the F.I.R is that there are landed property dispute between the parties with respect to alleged road in the land of the informant. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the informant- respondent No.2 has constructed a house illegally for which a certificate was also issued by the Circle Officer. Further it has been submitted that the proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated by the S.D.O., Chainpur being Case No.71 of 2019 in which report was also called from the concerned police station and the report was submitted stating therein that there is a chance of breach of peace and in this background, the appellant has been made accused and even the Government officials like Circle Officer, C.I. Karamchari and B.D.O. have also been made accused.
4. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.596 of 5. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no specific allegation against this appellant, namely, Amresh Kumar Pathak and all the allegations are omnibus and general in nature and the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted in view of the fact that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the genesis of the case is the landed property dispute for the road and allegations if any are not because the informant-respondent No.2 was belonging to a particular caste in order to attract the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand ” (2020) 10 SCC 710
6. On other hand, learned APP appearing on behal of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that there are direct allegation against all the accused persons under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and appellant does not deserve to get anticipatory bail, although she did not controvert this fact that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.596 of 2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this Court.
8. It is admitted the case of the prosecution that the crux of the dispute between the parties is the landed property for the road. There is no specific allegation against this appellant and all the allegations are general in nature. Further, it is found that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in has also been pointed that there is no evidence to substantiate the fact that th
