Jharkhand High Court
Kurban Ansari @ Kurban Mian Aged 65 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2024
1. Kurban Ansari @ Kurban Mian aged 65 years, son of Late Ali Hussain Ansari
2. Bablu Ansari aged 44 years, son of Kurban Ansari
3. Dablu Ansari @ Islam Ansari aged about 40 years son of Kurban Ansari
All are residents of village Kotwaldih Tola Thokaiyatand, P.O. - Palmo, P.S.
Giridih (Muffasil) District - Giridih ..... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Munwa Devi wife of Parmeshwar Turi, resident of village Kotwaldih Tola
Thokaiyat, P.O. Palmo, P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP
-----
6/17.03.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned APP
appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Giridih, in connection with SC/ST Case No.07 of 2021
registered under Sections 148, 323, 354, 427 & 506 of IPC and under Sections
3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST POA Act, whereby and whereunder the anticipatory bail
application of the appellants have been rejected in ABP No.1494 of 2024 by the
learned trial court.
3. At the outset, it appears from the previous order dated 19.12.2024 that
despite proper service of notice to the respondent No.2, no one has been appearing
in this case for a long period of time since 19.12.2024.
4. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, by which, it appears that
the notice has been properly served upon the respondent No.2-informant through
the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, but despite proper of service
of notice, no one has been appearing in this appeal.
5. In this view of the matter, it is prayed on behalf of the appellants that as a
matter of fact, it is a landed property dispute between both the parties as evident
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2024
from the FIR itself, which is based on a complaint petition filed by the respondent
No.2 vide Complaint Case No. 07 of 2021.
6. It has further been submitted that the incident was said to have taken place
as far back as on 17.9.2020, but the complaint was filed before the learned
concerned Trial Court on 19.12.2020 after a lapse of three months and thereafter an
FIR was instituted vide Giridih (Sadar), SC/ST Case No.07 of 2021 on 12.05.2021
registered under sections 148, 323, 354, 427 and 506 of IPC and under Sections
3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST POA Act.
7. It has further been pointed out that from the contents of the FIR, particularly
Para-1 of the complaint petition, it appears that this case is related to Mauja
Kotwaldih Khata No.52/3, rakwa 2.49 acres and therefore, there is landed property
dispute between the parties.
8. It has also been pointed out that a supplementary affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the appellants, where a proceeding under section 144 of CrPC was
initiated at the instance of the appellants against the informant and her family
members vide Misc. Case No. 603 of 2020 dated 10.11.2020 under Section 144 of
CrPC in order to show that it is a landed property dispute and no incident as alleged
in the FIR has ever taken place, by which these appellants have been made accused
of accusing the informant by taking the name of his caste or any kind of outraging
the modesty of the informant and therefore since no offence under Section SC/ST
has been substantiated and therefore the appellants deserve to get the privilege of
anticipatory bail in the light of the Rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh
Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.
9. Further it has been contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant from Para 21 of the Case Diary that the offence under Section 354 of IPC
has not been substantiated.
10. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the
prayer of the appellants stating that it is a case under SC/ST and although it is a
landed property dispute, but the allegation of accusing the informant people by
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2024
taking the name of their caste is also supported and therefore, the appellants do not
deserve to get the privilege of anticipatory bail.
11. In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it is found just and fair to enlarge the
appellants on bail.
12. Accordingly, the appellants above named are directed to be enlarged on bail
in the event of their arrest / surrender on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih, in connection
with Giridih SC/ST Case No.07 of 20201, subject to the condition that they will
cooperate in the investigation of the case and they will appear as and when required
by the IO and also in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court,
failing which, appropriate order shall be passed for the cancellation of the bail.
13. In the result, the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Giridih in ABP No.1494 of 2024, in connection with SC/ST
Case No.07 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set-aside.
14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2024