The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi refused anticipatory bail to three men accused of trying to grab land from an elderly man in Bokaro. The case, which started as a bitter property fight, took a sharp turn when the defense lawyer allegedly shouted at the judge and threatened to move the Supreme Court.
Background
The petitions were filed by Anil Kumar alias Anil Verma, Manish Kumar alias Sonu, and Akhilesh Kumar Singh. They sought protection from arrest in connection with Chira Chas Police Station Case No. 72 of 2025, where serious charges were framed under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections relating to assault, causing hurt, and even culpable homicide.
The defense counsel argued that the men had been falsely implicated. "There is a long-standing land dispute," their lawyer Rakesh Kumar told the court. He further claimed that mobile tower records did not place his clients at the scene on the date of the alleged incident, and that official records showed the disputed land belonged to them.
On the other side, the State's counsel, assisted by the informant's lawyer, painted a very different picture. They alleged that the accused had been harassing the 80-year-old informant for months, even threatening him at gunpoint to vacate and transfer his land. They also pointed out that the petitioners had criminal records and had previously been granted bail in another land dispute case earlier this year.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dwivedi took note of the seriousness of the allegations. He remarked that land grabbing cases, particularly targeting senior citizens, were "very rampant in Jharkhand." The judge noted that the accused were not first-time offenders and had criminal antecedents.
"The informant is aged about 80 years old and allegation is that petitioners have tried to grab the land… such type of crime is very rampant in the State of Jharkhand," the court observed.
Citing these reasons, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail pleas.
Heated Exchange in Court
But the real drama unfolded after the order was dictated. According to the judgment, defense counsel Rakesh Kumar raised his voice in the packed courtroom and openly challenged the judge, saying he would move the Supreme Court. The incident shocked those present, including senior advocates, the State’s counsel, and members of the Advocates’ Association.
The judge recorded that the lawyer's conduct amounted to an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice.
"It was an attack on Judge, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersion. Such conduct must be punished as contempt," Justice Dwivedi remarked.
Decision
Ordinarily, such behavior would invite contempt proceedings. The judgment even cites the principle that a single judge has full power to initiate and punish for contempt committed in court. However, several senior lawyers, including the President and Secretary of the Advocates Association, pleaded for leniency, assuring the court that the advocate would not repeat such behavior.
Accepting their request, Justice Dwivedi stopped short of starting contempt proceedings. Instead, he referred the matter to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for disciplinary action. Significantly, the order notes that the Bar Council Chairman himself was present in court when the incident happened.
With that, the High Court closed the bail applications, rejected the relief sought by the accused, and passed the responsibility of dealing with the lawyer’s conduct to the Bar Council.
Case Title: Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Verma v. The State of Jharkhand and another