Anticipatory bail may be granted based on the general nature of allegations in FIR and prior bail granted to similarly situated co-accused.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. At the outset, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has pointed out that a step was already taken on behalf of the State for the service of notice to the respondent No.2, who is the informant in the present case.

3. Accordingly, the learned APP submitted that he has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submitting therein that Sub-Inspect of Police at Torpa P.S., District Khunti has served notice to the respondent No.2 on 16.12.2024 and a photocopy of the notice dated 16.12.2024 was also annexed with the counter-affidavit which has been marked as Annexure-A.

4. From the perusal of the Annexure-A, it is found that the informant Jakrious Hemrom has received the notice on 16.12.2024 itself but till today no-one has appeared on behalf of the informant-respondent No.2.

5. In this view of matter, let one more opportunity be given to the informant-respondent No.2 to appear in this case.

I.A. No.13289 of 2024

6. Further the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that one interlocutory application has been filed being I.A. No.13289 of 2024 on behalf of the appellants praying therein to condone the delay of 272 days in filing the criminal appeal in the interest of justice.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that this criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No.79 of 2023 registered under Sections 448/341/323/307/504/506/34 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act whereby and whereunder the prayer of the anticipatory bail to the appellants has been dismissed as not maintainable.

8. Further, it is submitted that the appellants have got the knowledge that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Divya Kumar Singh @ Prince Singh & Dinesh Kumar Singh have been enlarged on bail by granting anticipatory bail to them by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.25 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.830 of 2023 and thereafter, these appellants had filed the present appeal and that is why the delay has been caused of 272 days.

9. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of “Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.” reported in 2022 SCC Online All 975 wherein para 17 read as under:-

“17. In view of our aforesaid discussions, the answers to the questions referred are as under :-

(i) Question No.(I) is answered in negative as Rohit Vs State of U.P. and another, (2017) 6 ALJ 754 has been overruled by Full Bench of this Court in In Re : Provision of section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, (2018) 6 ALJ 631.

(ii) Question No.(II) is answered in negative holding that an aggrieved person will not have two remedies namely, i.e. filing an appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act as well as filing a bail application in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(iii) Question No.(III) is answered in negative holding that the aggrieved person having remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(iv) Question No.(IV) - There will be no limitation to file an appeal against an order under the provisions of 1989 Act. Hence, the remedies can be availed of as provided.”

10. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the inte