2025:JHHC:33174 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 472 of 2025 ---------- Praveen Kumar Jaiswal ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ghode Oraon ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate ---------- 05/03.11.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14 A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challenging the order dated 30.04.2025, passed in M.C.A. No. 614 of 2025, by the learned A.J.C.- II-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi, by which prayer for regular bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Praveen Kumar Jaiswal has been rejected in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 86 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 3(5), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The Informant had lodged F.I.R. on 19.03.2025 that he is an illiterate tribal. He has total land of Five acres 37 decimals in Khata No.18 and some part of it have been sold by land broker Umesh Toppo, Shamkar Kujur, Rajesh Linda showing his kaimi land as auction land to non-tribal in connivance with Circle Officer, Kanke and employees after making wrong 2025:JHHC:33174 2 document and making online manipulation regarding removal of his land entry from online register II. They also got issuance of online rent receipt of his land stopped after 2021. It is alleged that they also forcefully took possession of the land and got boundary wall constructed. They also assaulted him and gave threatening and took his thumb impression on blank paper and also took his signature. He also has other pieces of land in other Khatas measuring total areas of 10 acres 27 decimals and 8 acres 66 decimals and out of the said land from Khata No. 119, 120, a total area of 10 acres is being sold by Umesh Toppo, Shankar Kujur, Rajesh Linda and Kamlesh Singh to non-tribal and they are also constructing boundary and when he visits that place for stopping the work of boundary, then he was assaulted and he used to be abused by his caste name. During that period some land broker of Nagri after giving false assurance of saving the land on the instruction of Kamlesh Singh brought Ranjit Toppo, Kunna Toppo, Suraj Toppo, Madi Toppo from Nagri and on the false assurance of saving the land took his thumb impression on blank paper and also took the signature of other family members and Umesh Toppo, Shankar Kujur, Rajesh Linda and Kamlesh Singh sold the land to non- tribal. In the whole occurrence Brajesh Kumar Singh, owner of Kanke Resort is also involved. 3. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, learned counsel for the Informant. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order passed by the learned 2025:JHHC:33174 3 Court below rejecting the bail of the appellant is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the appellant is a mere Computer Operator and had worked only for Six months in the Circle Office, Kanke and has not tampered with any official record. It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons, namely Umesh Toppo, Shankar Kujur, Rajesh Linda, Kamlesh Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Suraj Toppo, Kunna Toppo, Ranjit Toppo. It is submitted that several co- accused, namely Kamlesh Kumar was granted regular bail, whereas, Brajesh Singh was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, whereas co-accused Umesh Toppo has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner became witness in a case of Enforcement Directorate and then his name has transpired in this case at the instance of the Circle Officers, namely Diwakar Dwivedi and Jai Kumar Ram, who were accused in that case. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 27.03.2025 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that though the appellant’s name had not come in the F.I.R. but he was also, in connivance with the accused persons, namely Umesh Toppo, Shankar Kujur, Rajesh Linda, Kamlesh Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Suraj Toppo, Kunna Toppo, Ranjit Toppo inducing the informant and taking the land by paying him meagre amount. It is submitted 2025:JHHC:33174 4 that the appellant and another co-accused has tampered with the Online Jamabandi in the land records and it has been stated by Diwakar Dwivedi, Circle Officer with regard to 27.51 acres of land in Para 79 of the Case Diary. It is submitted that the appellant has also confessed his guilt for tampering with the land records, which is mentioned in Para 42 of the Case Diary and even a laptop was recovered from the appellant. It is submitted that other co-accused Sharukh Khan, Umesh Toppo have also confessed their guilt for working in association with the appellant and the other accused persons, which has been mentioned at Paragraph 45 and 46 of the Case Diary. It is submitted that the appellant has acquired several properties in his name and other family members, particularly his mother, as mentioned in Paragraph 123 of the Case Diary, i.e. as many as Six properties and hence, prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that the appellant along with other co- accused persons used to come to the residence of the Informant and relatives and nearby persons and they had threatened the Informant and several others and they used to obtain papers and their property documents and they have sold it to non-tribal people without paying any proper consideration amount. It is submitted that the appellant is actively involved in tampering with the revenue records with regard to land of the Informant. It is submitted that Ganesh Oraon, Mahendra Oraon, Tetri Devi and Bandhan Oraon, whose statements have been recorded at Paragraph No.s 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Case 2025:JHHC:33174 5 Diary, have fully supported the case of the Informant. It is submitted that Paragraph No.42 of the Case Diary is the confessional statement of the appellant, who has also admitted to have arrived at the residence of the Informant and had taken away his signatures forcibly and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R., the Case Diary and the records of this case and considered the submission of both sides. 8. It reveals from the F.I.R. that the appellant has not been named in the F.I.R. 9. It appears that the name of the appellant subsequently came in this case on the basis of statement of Ganesh Oraon, Mahendra Oraon, Tetri Devi and Bandhan Oraon, whose statements have been recorded at Paragraph No.s 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Case Diary. 10. From the statement of the Circle Officer, at Para 79 of the Case Diary, it would appear that he has pointed out regarding tampering of the pieces of land in question in the Revenue Records and he stated about tampering of record against several accused persons including the appellant. 11. It appears that co-accused Brajesh Kumar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 passed in Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No. 415 of 2025, whereas another co-accused, namely Kamlesh Kumar has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 in Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No. 641 of 2025 and another co-accused Umesh Toppo has been granted regular bail vide order dated 23.07.2025 by 2025:JHHC:33174 6 the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court passed in B.A. No. 6154 of 2025. 12. Considering the custody of the appellant and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant, namely Praveen Kumar Jaiswal is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 86 of 2025, to the satisfaction of the learned A.J.C.- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi/or his Successor Court, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the appellant and the other bailor must be having landed property in his/her own specific name and the appellant shall ensure that he will remain present on each and every date before the learned Court below till the conclusion of the trial and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Ranchi without prior permission of the learned Court below and shall submit his Adhar Card and Mobile Number before the learned Court below. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 30.04.2025, passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 614 of 2025, by the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi is set aside. 14. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 472 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 03.11.2025