2025:JHHC:18581 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 133 of 2025 1.Lattu Yadav aged about 49 years, son of Late Rito Yadav, 2.Baijnath Yadav aged about 60 years, son of Late Rito Yadav, 3.Rameshwar Yadav aged about 70 years, son of Late Rito Yadav, 4.Mahesh Yadav aged about 40 years, son of Late Rito Yadav, 5.Gaurav Kumar aged about 22 years, son of Lattu Yadav 6.Anand Kumar aged about 20 years, son of Lattu Yadav 7.Chandan Kumar aged about 22 years, son of Mahesh Yadav, All are residents of village-Bucchitanr, P.O & P.S-Domchanch, District-Koderma …… Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Androni Toppo, wife of Late Prahudaan Kujur, resident of Addi Banglow, P.O. & P.S-Telaiya, District Koderma ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate ----------- 06/Dated:01st July, 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.859 of 2024 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Koderma in connection with Koderma (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.04 of 2024. 2. The informant had lodged the First Information Report alleging therein that she belongs to Schedule Tribe and the land in question under Khata No.457, Plot No.3230, area 6.59 2025:JHHC:18581 2 decimal was obtained in the name of informant in Title Suit No.29 of 2005. Thereafter the informant and her husband namely late Prabhudan Kujur constructed a commercial building comprising of three rooms and have been paying rent to the Government. It is further alleged that after the death of the husband of the informant in the year 2014, the accused persons illegally and forcibly occupied the said rooms of the building. It is further alleged that on 15.09.2023, the informant went to the said building and asked the accused Mahesh Yadav to vacate the said building but in the meanwhile, all the appellants arrived there by forming an unlawful assembly and they used castiest remarks against the informant and abused her in filthy language and also threatened to kill her. 3. Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order 02.01.2015 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated by the informant-Respondent No.2. It is submitted that Appellant Nos.1 to 4 have purchased the said land from the said Smt. Sushila Topno through a registered sale deed dated 02.03.2015 and since then they are in the possession over the said land in question. It is submitted that the son of the Informant namely Anmol Deepak Kujur had filed a House Rent Control Case against the appellants before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koderma bearing House Rent Control Case No.01 of 2017, in which she has stated that the appellants were his 2025:JHHC:18581 3 tenants in said building in question but after hearing the said case, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koderma has dismissed the same vide order dated 28.02.2018 on the basis that the Informant and her husband have never taken rent from the appellants and the said building was constructed by one Sushila Topno. 5. It has been submitted that the complainant never filed any civil suit for declaring the title of the said land and she has only tried to vacate the possession over said building of the appellants in question on the basis of her caste. It is submitted that in the entire complaint petition the complainant has not disclosed the name of the villagers in whose presence the appellants had allegedly humiliated the complainant, which suggests that the allegations are false and concocted. It is further submitted that there is purely a civil dispute between the parties and the allegations are false and the Informant has got no concern with the building in question. It has been submitted that the appellants are daily wage labourers and have falsely been implicated in the instant case without any cogent and legal evidence. It is submitted that there is no ingredient under Sections 504 and 506 of the I.P.C against the appellants and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the appellants have abused the informant and her son in the name of the caste of the Informant and they have also threatened and assaulted the informant and her son and which has been supported by the informant and several witness in their respective statements 2025:JHHC:18581 4 recorded before the police and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the Informant-Respondent No.2, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has further submitted that the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants has rightly been rejected by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the appellants are the emboldened persons and they wanted to grab the properties of the informant-Respondent No.2 who is a poor widow lady. 8. It is further submitted that this is not a case of civil dispute rather this is a case of illegal grabbing of properties of the informant by the appellants. It is submitted that the land upon which the informant and her son had constructed rooms belongs to the informant and which was purchased in the year 2002 (i.e. on 15.11.2002) from one Smt. Sushila Topno by registered sale deed by the Respondent No.2. 9. It is further submitted that the informant-Respondent No.2 had filed Title Suit No.29 of 2005 before the learned Additional Judge-I, Koderma for right, title and possession of land in Khata No.80, Plot no.3237, Area-0.011/8 Acre and Khata No.457, Plot No.3230, Area 0.14 ½ Acre lands and which had been decided in Lok Adalat by order dated 20.01.2010 on the basis of compromise between both parties and the final Award has been passed by learned Lok Adalat, Koderma on the basis of compromise dated 23.05.2008 in presence of witnesses namely Md. Moahur Hussain and Lattu Yadav, who is one of the appellant in this case. Photo copy of order dated 30.01.2010 and compromise dated 23.05.2008 have been enclosed as Annexure-C series to the counter affidavit. 2025:JHHC:18581 5 It is submitted that the informant-Respondent No.2 has got mutation of the land in her favour and rent receipts and holding tax has been issued in her name and also the electric bills are in her favour. Photo copies of rent receipts, holding tax and Register-II have been enclosed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the husband of the Respondent No.2 namely Prabhudan Kujur had agreement for rent for aforesaid house in land dated 28.07.2004 with Dedan Mahato, Manoj Kumar Jha and Lattu Yadav which itself shows that the land in question belongs to the Respondent No.2. Photo copy of agreements and rent receipts are enclosed as Annexure-E. 10. It is submitted that even vide Letter No.1255 dated 12.11.2021 the Circle Officer, Koderma had sent a letter to Deputy Commissioner, Koderma with the fact that house of the Respondent No.2 is required to cleared from illegal possession from the appellants. The Circle Officer, Koderma vide letter no.1925 dated 07.10.2023 also requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koderma to appoint the Magistrate and to provide with woman police force for eviction of illegal possession of the house of the Respondent No.2. Photo copy of the letters has been enclosed as Annexure-F and as such the anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the appellants may be rejected. 11. Perused the F.I.R, the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 and the supplementary affidavit dated 07.04.2025 filed on behalf of the opposite party-State and also the counter affidavit dated 11.04.2025 filed on behalf of the Informant-Respondent No.2. 2025:JHHC:18581 6 12. From perusal of the agreement executed between the informant and the appellants, it appears that appellants were on rent in the premises of the informant but later on Appellant Nos.1 to 4 failed to vacate the same. 13. It also appears that one Title Suit No.29 of 200 is pending between the parties and the stage of the case not been brought on record by the either side. 14. It also appears that the Appellant Nos.1 to 4 are occupying 3 to 4 rooms of the informant-Victim lady for a long period and they have threatened of dire consequences. 15. It appears that the appellants have failed to show any paper that they are the bona fide purchasers of the land or having any agreement with the proper person. 16. It also appears that even the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koderma vide letter dated 20.09.2023 had directed the Circle Officer to investigate on the place of occurrence and submit a report and pursuant to letter dated 20.09.2023 the Circle Officer, Koderma had inspected the house of the informant and submitted his report dated 07.10.2023 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koderma that the Appellant No.1-Lattu Yadav and others are not vacating the premises in question. 17. It also appears from the F.I.R that an Agreement was executed between the informant and the appellants and they had agreed on certain terms and conditions which have been described in the Agreement dated 13.11.2020. 18. It appears that the appellants have threatened the informant and her son of dire consequences. 19. It also appears that on the date of occurrence the appellants had abused the informant in the name of her caste in the public place. 2025:JHHC:18581 7 20. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no merit in this Criminal Appeal and as such the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants is rejected. 21. Thus, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.133 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. The Interim order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court stands vacated. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-