IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Dinesh Singh Mukhiya @ Dinesh Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Ram Prasad Singh, R/o Nirsha Raja Colliery, Nirsha, P.O.+P.S. –Nirsha, District –Dhanbad. .... Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Arvind Kumar Ram, S/o Ashok Ram, R/o near KSGM College, Nirsha, P.O.+P.S. –Nirsha, District –Dhanbad.

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

For the Appellant : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P.

For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanddip Barnwal, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant abused the Chamar informant by taking his caste name of which comes under Scheduled Castes in a place within public view, hence the informant submitted a written report to the officer-in- charge of Nrisa Police Station. Basing upon the same Nirsha P.S. Case No. 285 of 2025 has been registered and police took up investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not know whether investigation of the case has been completed or charge sheet has been submitted or not. The appellant filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail being Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 2205 of 2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad but the same was rejected in view of the bar provided under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the injuries sustained are simple in nature, hence the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad ought to have granted anticipatory bail to the appellant and by not allowing the prayer for anticipatory bail, illegality has been committed. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner, the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out against the appellant. It is next submitted that besides the serious offence, the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the appellant as the appellant attempted to commit the murder of the informant. Hence, it is submitted that in view of bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge having not committed any illegality, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being not a member of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, abused the informant who is a member of the Chamar scheduled castes belonging to caste in a place within public view. The same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. In view of the fact that the offences punishable under Section

3(1)(r) and (s) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out against the appellant, therefore, because of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,