Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Shibu Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Mahto, S/o Birasay Mahto and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Respondents
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 894 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, APP
The mere existence of a conflict involving SC/ST individuals does not automatically substantiate violations under the SC/ST Act when the dispute is fundamentally about land rights.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 & 34 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Anticipatory bail - The court found that the allegations arose from a land dispute and were not substantiated under the SC/ST Act, leaning on precedent established in "Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another" - The appellants' application for anticipatory bail was allowed. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the rejection of anticipatory bail for the appellants in relation to an FIR claiming communal insults and injuries stemming from a land property dispute involving multiple accused persons.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations against the appellants did not substantiate an offense under the SC/ST Act and granted bail.
Issues: The critical issue was whether the alleged offense constituted an SC/ST Act violation given that the real issue was a land dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of the dispute is crucial and found no sufficient basis under the SC/ST Act to deny bail, referring to established legal precedent confirming that not every altercation involving SC/ST individuals warrants action under the Act.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the order rejecting anticipatory bail was quashed, granting the appellants bail contingent on specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations under sc/st act related to land dispute (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. nature of injuries and relevance to anticipatory bail (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. comparison with co-accused and legal precedent (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. decision to grant anticipatory bail (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. quashing of earlier order and allowance of appeal (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. conditions for granting bail and disposal of appeal (Para 12 , 13) |
Order :
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, Ramgarh in A.B.P. No.732 of 2023, by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) Case No.08 of 2021 registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 & 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the gist of the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R is that there was a land property dispute between the parties and altercation took place between them and the informant has made an allegations against 14 named and other accused persons for using abusive languages by taking the name of their caste and insulting them and the informant had also sustained injuries.
4. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the real dispute between the parties is with respect to the land and not because of the informant belonging to SC/ST community and therefore it is prayed on behalf of the appellants that no offence under SC/ST Act is substantiated and reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants in the case of “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710.
5. Further, it has been pointed out that the injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the injured is simple in nature as evident from para 23 of the case diary.
6. It has Further been pointed out that similarly situated co- accused persons namely, Meghnath Mahto, Charka Mahto, Ram Bittu Ram in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.894 of 2022 vide order dated 14.03.2023 have been enlarged on regular bail by the coordinate bench of this Court and these appellants have prayed for anticipatory bail in view of the ratio of case laws “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”(supra), where no offence of SC/T Act is made out on the face of it and therefore, there is no bar for anticipatory bail in the light of the said Hon’ble Apex Court rulings.
7. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and stated that there was a clear cut case under SC/ST Act although he did not controvert this fact that the entire dispute is because of the landed property of Khata No.49, Plot No.697 as emanating from the contents of the F.I.R. itself and also did not controvert this fact that there is no specific allegation against these appellants and all the allegations are omnibus and general in nature.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case including the case diary.
9. In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellants on bail in anticipation of their arrests or surrender.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.732 of 2023 in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) Case No.08 of 2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the appellants named above are directed to be released on bail in apprehension of their arrests or surrender within 15 days on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Vacation Judge, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh (SC/ST) Case No.08 of 2021 subject to the condition that the appellants w
