1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.699 of 2024 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 2 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 3 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