##PAGE1##

( 2026:JHHC:8789 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026

------

1. Kameshwar Saw aged about 47 years, 2. Jiblal Saw aged about 37 years, both sons of Peru Saw,

Both residents of Village-Mathadih, P.O.-Parwatpur, P.S.-

Ahilyapur, District-Giridih.

… Appellants Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. XXX d/o XXX Resident of village-XXX, P.O.-XXX, P.S.-XXX, District-XXX.

… Respondents ------

For the Appellants : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P.

For the OP 2 : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.2367 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has rejected the prayer for regular bail of the appellants on the ground that there is direct and specific allegation of assault against

1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026

( 2026:JHHC:8789 )

them and also the allegation of hurling abuse by calling the informants

by their caste name.

3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons abused the informant, who is member of scheduled castes, by her caste name and when the same was protested by the informant, they outraged her modesty by tearing out her clothes and the appellant no.2 assaulted the informant while the appellant no.1 assaulted her father namely Hira

Lal.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and the cognizance

of the offences has also been taken.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned court below has failed to consider that the occurrence took place during the quarrel, in respect of which the appellant no.1 lodged an FIR basing upon which Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 109, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 352, 351(2) & 3, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and in that case also, charge sheet has also been submitted by the police against the accused persons of that case. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has also failed to consider that the alleged injuries sustained by the victims upon the assault made by the appellants are simple in

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026

( 2026:JHHC:8789 )

nature. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has also failed to consider that the appellants have been in custody since 17.11.2025 and they have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih failed to consider that the co-accused persons, who assaulted the informant- who sustained grievous injury, have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide the judgement dated 14.11.2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.547 of 2025, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by

the appellants in this appeal, be allowed.

6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellants and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the appellants, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has rightly rejected their prayer to be released on bail. It is also submitted that the victim Belly Devi has in her statement under Section 180 of BNS, 2023 also stated that she was also assaulted by the appellants, though in the FIR it has specifically