##PAGE1##

[2026:JHHC:8994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1057 of 2025

Arvind Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Jhaman Mahto, resident of Talasbar, Block Barkagaon, P.O. &

P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

...... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sunny Kumar, son of Dhaneshwar Ram, resident of Village Chopdar, Balia P.O. & P.S. Barkagaon, District -

Hazaribagh. ….. Respondents

For the Appellants : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv.

Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Adv.

Mr. Prakhar Harit, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Bandna Sinha, Addl. PP For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Adv.

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- I.A. No. 4372 of 2026 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early

hearing of this appeal.

Since, the hearing of this appeal is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands

disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

I.A. no. 16857 of 2025 Learned counsel for the appellant does not press

this interlocutory application.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not pressed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1057 of 2025

[2026:JHHC:8994

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1057 of 2025

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in ABP no. 1840 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.248 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in which the charge sheet is yet to be

submitted and the investigation of the case is going on.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, indulged in assaulting the victims and abused the informant by using his caste name in vulgar language. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh considered that since the case is registered involving the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 so the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail

of the appellant, keeping in view of the gravity of the offence.

4. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, drawing attention of the court to the supplementary affidavit which is annexed with the joint compromise petition, signed by both the informant and the appellant and the signature of the informant is identified by learned counsel Mr. Lalit Yadav that the informant and the appellant have entered into a compromise outside the court, with the intervention of the well-wishers, relatives and common

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1057 of 2025

[2026:JHHC:8994

friends and have resolved their dispute and good relationship has been restored, hence, the appellant and the respondents have no objection, if the anticipatory bail is allowed to the appellant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since in the FIR, it has not been disclosed as to which caste, the informant belongs nor there is any averment that the informant-victim is either a member of the Scheduled Caste or a member of the Scheduled Tribes and in the absence of the same, neither the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) nor the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (s) of Schedul