##PAGE1##

( 2 0 2 6 : J H H C : 8 4 7 6 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 210 of 2025

1. Rinku @ Tinku Saw, aged about 26 years, s/o late Rajkumar Saw

2. Jagni Devi, aged about 57 years, w/o late Rajkumar Saw

3. Babita Devi, aged about 25 years, w/o Deepak Kumar Saw All r/o Village-Aragaro, P.O.-Chandwara, P.S.-Chandwara, Dist.-

Koderma .... Appellants

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Renu Devi, aged about 26 years, w/o Bahadur Paswan, r/o Village-Aragaro, P.O.-Chandwara, P.S.-Chandwara, Dist.-Koderma

…. Respondents

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Appellants : Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl. P.P.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate …..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Act, Koderma whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Act, Koderma has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants filed in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),

1 Cr Appeal (SJ) No.210 of 2025

( 2 0 2 6 : J H H C : 8 4 7 6 )

115(2), 76, 303(2), 74, 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants in

furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons being not member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes abused the informant who is a member of scheduled castes in a place within public view by telling her caste name i.e. Dusadh. There is further allegation against the appellants of voluntarily causing hurt to the informant, using criminal force against the informant- woman to outrage her modesty and to disrobe her and committed

theft of mangalsutra of the informant.

4. On the basis of the written report, police registered Chandwara

P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that charge sheet has

not yet been submitted and investigation of the case is still going

on.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST,

Act, Koderma considered that since the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out from the allegations; so in view of the bar under Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 held that the anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable and

rejected the same.

2 Cr Appeal (SJ) No.210 of 2025

( 2 0 2 6 : J H H C : 8 4 7 6 )

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Act, Koderma ought to have granted anticipatory bail to the appellants in view of the counter case being Chandwara P.S. Case No. 59 of 2024 being lodged by the appellant no.3 against the informant, her husband and her mother-in-law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST, Act, Koderma has failed to consider that the allegations against the appellants are all false. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported (2020) 10 SCC 710, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that therein it has been observed in paragraph no.22 that the property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless, the allegations