Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD
Manish Anand – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3042 of 2024, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No.45/2024, CNR No. JHRN01-012934-2024, instituted u/ss. 249/ 127(1)/ 115(2)/ 63/ 64(2)(B)/ 69/74/76/318(2)(4)/352/351(2) BNS & U/s.s 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by Shri. Manish Ranjan, learned AJC-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi, by which the anticipatory bail petition of the Appellant has been rejected.
2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shishir Raj, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
The court held that significant delays in filing a complaint can undermine its credibility, affecting anticipatory bail decisions.
The court may grant anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act if the allegations against the accused are not substantiated and prior complaints exist.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is established under the SC/ST Act, as per the ruling in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra.
The court established that allegations under the SC/ST Act require evidence of public view humiliation, which was not present in this case.
There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie....
The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if prima facie evidence of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act exists against the appellants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article