PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan
MOHAMMAD AZAD @ MUNNA @ MUNNA ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CR. APP (SJ)/1459/2022
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - LAND DISPUTE - SC/ST ACT - [The court held that if there is a land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of abusing the informant by taking his caste name and stopping his construction work. The appellant claimed that he was innocent and that there was a land dispute between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a land dispute between the parties and that the appellant had no criminal antecedent. The court also found that there was no specific overt act against the appellant to have abused the informant.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case where there was a land dispute between the parties and the appellant was accused of abusing the informant by taking his caste name.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, which held that if there is a land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1459 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2021 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
MOHAMMAD AZAD @ MUNNA @ MUNNA ANSARI Son of
Mohammad Zafar Ansari Resident of Village - Ward n o.05, Neura Masjid,
Tikauta, P.S.- Turkauliya, Distt.- east Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
2.
Raj Deo Paswan Son of Late Mahavir Paswan Resident of Village -
Madhopur, P.S.- Turkauliya, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr.Dhurendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL ORDER
3
04-01-2023
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Spl.P.P. for the State.
Despite valid service of notice and filing of vakalatnama,
nobody appears on behalf of respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to remove
the defect(s) pointed out by the office within four weeks.
This is an appeal under section 14A (2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter in short referred to as the
‘SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail
vide order dated 06.04.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, East Champaran
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1459 of 2022(3) dt.04-01-2023
2/3
at Motihari, in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No.214 of
2021, registered u/s 323/341/327/385/504/506/34 of the IPC and
sections 3(i), (A)(r)(s)/3(ii)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Allegedly, while the informant was doing construction
work in his newly purchased land, all the accused persons
including the appellant came there and stopped the construction
work and demanded three lakhs from each person. It is further
alleged that by saying caste name, assaulted, abused the
informant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. No
such occurrence, in the manner as alleged has ever taken place.
Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case with frivolous
allegation. It is submitted that there is land dispute between the
parties. It is submitted that no offence under the SC/ST Act is
made out against the appellant as there is no specific overt act
against the appellant to have abused the informant rather there is
general and omnibus allegation against all the accused person.
Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in 2020
(10) SCC 710, it is submitted that if there is a land dispute
between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1459 of 2022(3) dt.04-01-2023
3/3
maintainable. Appellant has no criminal antecedent.
Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail
by submitting that appellant in association with other accused
persons abused the informant by taking caste name.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since
there is a land dispute between the parties, let the appellant
named above, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, East Champaran
at Motihari, in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No.214 of
2021, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2)
of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this
appeal is allowed.
pallavi/-
(Anjani Kumar Shar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.