Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan
MANOJ SAHU @ MANOJ SAH – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. APP (SJ)/4626/2021
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SC/ST ACT - LAND DISPUTE - [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 appellants were accused of committing offences under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(r) (s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants filed an appeal for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the lower court. The appellants contended that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case, and that there was a land dispute between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that if there is a land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a case where there was a land dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 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, and directed that the appellants be released on bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4626 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Samastipur
======================================================
1.
MANOJ SAHU @ MANOJ SAH S/o Late Laxman Sah R/o village- Mahra,
P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
2.
Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Singhania S/o Manoj Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.-
Singhia, District- Samastipur
3.
Pridarshan @ Priya Ranjan S/o Manoj Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.- Singhia,
District- Samastipur
4.
Sanjay Sahu @ Sanjay Sah S/o Bharat Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.-
Singhia, District- Samastipur
5.
Ashok Kumar S/o Sanjay Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District-
Samastipur
6.
Pramod Sahu @ Pramod Sah S/o Ramji Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.-
Singhia, District- Samastipur
7.
Krishna Sahu @ Krishna Sah @ Krishna Mohan Sahu @ Krishna Kumar
S/o Pramod Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
8.
Chandra Mohan Kumar @ Chandra Mohan Sah S/o Pramod Sah R/o village-
Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
9.
Tulsi Sahu @ Tulsi Sah @ Ritesh Ranjan S/o Binod Sah R/o village- Mahra,
P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
10.
Rajeev Sahu @ Rajeev Sah @ Rajeev Kumar S/o Binod Sah R/o village-
Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
11.
Chandan Sah S/o Krishndeo Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District-
Samastipur
12.
Krishna Deo Sahu @ Krishna Deo Sah S/o Raghunandan Sah R/o village-
Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
13.
Raghunandan Sahu @ Raghunandan Sah @ Raghu Sahu S/o Late Mantun
Sah R/o village- Mahra, P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Yougendra Chaupal son of Nathuni Chaupal resident of village- Mahra, P.S.-
Singhiya, District- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4626 of 2021(4) dt.11-01-2023
2/4
ORAL ORDER
4
11-01-2023
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to remove
the defects within four weeks.
Learned counsel for the appellants filed a supplementary
affidavit and in para-2 of the said affidavit, he stated that the
notice served upon respondent no.2 was received by his wife,
who resides at the same place as that of respondent no.2.
Considering this fact, notice is hereby treated as validly
served upon the respondent no.2.
This is an appeal under section 14 (A) (2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST
Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 18.09.2021, passed by learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur
SC/ST P.S. Case No.28 of 2021, registered under sections 147,
149, 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(r) (s)
of S.C./S.T. Act.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
present case. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken
place. There is general and omnibus allegation against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4626 of 2021(4) dt.11-01-2023
3/4
appellants. There is an admitted land dispute between the parties
and a title suit, bearing title suit no.91 of 2011, is also pending
between the informant and appellant no.1 and father of appellant
no.5 and 6. Appellants have no criminal antecedent, which is
also mentioned in para-3 of the memo of the appeal. Relying
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10
Supreme Court Cases 710., it is submitted that if there is a
land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
