SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Om Prakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 307 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sanjay Kumar
For the Respondents: Nehala Sharmin, Sudhanshu Singh

The statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail for offences under the special legislation is not attracted when the complaint fails to establish the essential criteria for the charged offences, specifically the identity of the victim belonging to the protected class and the occurrence of the incident in public view.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r) and 18 - Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability - Bar against - For the bar under Section 18 of the Act to apply, the complaint must prima facie disclose necessary ingredients of the offence - Where the complaint lacks specific averments regarding the identity of the victim as a member of a protected class and the requirement of public view, the statutory bar is not attracted. (Paras 3, 6, 7).

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought anticipatory bail following the rejection of their application by a lower court, which cited the statutory bar against anticipatory bail in matters involving the special legislation. Parties had reached a settlement, and the appellant contended that the essential elements of the alleged offences were entirely absent from the initial complaint, specifically regarding the identity of the victim and the necessary circumstances for the alleged offences.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the FIR failed to identify the victim as a member of the protected community and lacked allegations of humiliation in public view, thus rendering the special statute provisions inapplicable to the case.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application despite the statutory bar and whether the factual allegations substantiated the invocations of the special protective legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar on anticipatory bail under the special legislation is not absolute and does not apply where the basic factual foundation required for the application of such provisions is missing from the complaint.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and factual allegations of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argument regarding lack of prima facie offence ingredients. (Para 4 , 5)
3. bail granted as no prima facie case exists. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities (Amendment) Act, 2015 against the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro in A.B.P. no. 141 of 2025 arising out of Sector-IV (SC/ST) P.S. case no. 07 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 354, 504, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereby and whereunder, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants entered into the house of informant and outraged the modesty of the mother of the informant. The appellants filed A.B.P. no. 141 of 2025. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro Considered that since the offences punishable under the provisions under section 3(1) (i) and 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is involved in this case, hence, in view of the bar under section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Anticipatory Bail Application is not maintainable and dismissed the Anticipatory Bill Application of the appellants.

4. It is submitted jointly by learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that compromise has been effected to between the parties with the intervention of the well-wishers and common friends and a separate joint compromise petition has been filed in this respect before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro failed to take into consideration the fact that no offence punishable under section 3(1) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which provides for punishment for compelling a member of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes to dispose of or carry human or animal carcasses or to dig graves, is even alleged in this case hence the question of such offence being made out against the appellants does not arise. It is further submitted that in the FIR, there is absolutely no allegation against the appellants of intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate any member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view nor even there is any averment as to whether the informant is a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Hence it is submitted that Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum- Special Judge, Bokaro has committed a grave illegality in dismissing the Anticipatory Bail Petition of the appellants. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this appeal be allowed.

5. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 fairly submit that there is absolutely no averment in the FIR that the alleged victim is either a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and the investigation of the case is still going on and the charge sheet has not yet been submitted, hence, in view of the compromise entered into between the informant -respondent no. 2 and the appellants, the respondents have no objection to the prayer made in this appeal.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this court is of the considered view that no offence punishable under Section 3(1) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top