2025:JHHC:24108 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 857 of 2024 1.Ramadhar Saw, aged about 68 years, son of Late Harihar Saw 2.Rajkeshwar Saw @ Raj Kishor Gupta @ Raj Kishor Saw, aged about 41 years, son of Ramadhar Saw 3.Mukesh Prasad @ Kariman Saw, aged about 42 years, son of Ramadhar Prasad @ Ramadhar Saw 4.Raj Kumar Prasad @ Pattu Saw @ Pattu Sao, aged about 37 years, son of Ramadhar Saw, all residents of Village-Ramkanda, P.O. and P.S. Ramkanda, District-Garhwa. …… Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Chameli Devi, wife of Rajbali Bhuiyan, aged about 39 years, resident of Village and Post-Ramkanda, P.S-Ramkanda, District Garhwa. ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, APP For the Resp. No.2 : None ----------- 05/Dated:11th August, 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Garhwa in A.B.P No.825 of 2024 in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No.10 of 2023, arising out of Complaint Case No.81 of 2022, instituted under sections 323, 341, 354, 448, 504, 506/34 of IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3 (1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2. As per complaint, the appellants are alleged to have threatened the complainant to leave the land for last two years and they were trying to take illegal possession of the same. It is alleged that on 15.12.2022 all the appellants entered into the 2025:JHHC:24108 2 house and assaulted her whereas Appellant No.2 namely Rajkeshwar Saw is alleged to have teased her. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed by the complaint only to harass the appellants. It is submitted that the father in- law of the informant had earlier instituted O.S. No.11 of 2020 against the complainant which has been enclosed as Annexure- 1, for the declalration of the right, title and interest with regard to 4.5 Acres of land and with regard to 2.5 Acres of land in question. However, vide order dated 30.11.2022 the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Garhwa has rejected the plaint filed by the father in-law of the –complainant-informant. Thereafter the Informant has filed complaint case being Complaint Case No.81 of 2022 on 23.12.2022 which has led to institution of Ramkanda P.S. Case No.10 of 2023 under sections 323, 341, 354, 448, 504, 506/34 of IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3 (1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted as the alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that appellants have abused the informant in the name of her caste and assaulted her and are trying to grab her land. It is submitted that during subsequent statement recorded at paragraph-5 and other witnesses namely Rajbali Bhuiyan, Pappu Kumar, Kuldip Bhuiyan and Rani Devi whose statements have been recorded at paragraph-6, 7, 8 and 9 have supported the allegation against the appellants. 2025:JHHC:24108 3 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all lands stand in the name of the appellant No.1-Ramadhar Saw is in occupation of entire 13.35 Acres of land including the land claimed by the informant in question. In support of the same, learned counsel for the appellants has produced the copy of certificate of Jharkhand Bhoodan Yagya Committee of the year 1981 and the Rent Receipts in his favour. 6. Despite sending notice to the informant by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) and also the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by another Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Navneet Kumar as then his Lordship was) and by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 the informant has not appeared. 7. Considering the fact that there was land dispute between the parties and also considering the fact that the occurrence had taken place inside the house, the appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the appellants shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Garhwa in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No.10 of 2023, arising out of Complaint Case No.81 of 2022. However, the appellants shall not cause any undue delay in disposal of trial. 8. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.857 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-