IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 307 of 2025

1. Om Prakash Yadav, aged about 51 years, 2. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Yadav, aged about 49 years, Both sons of Mukhtar Yadav, R/O- BSL Jhopri Colony Near Durga Mandi, P.O.- Siwandih, P.S.- Marafari, District-Bokaro. ...... Appellants Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Late Devchand Ram, R/o BSL, Jhopri colony, P.O. & P.S.- Marafari, Dist.- Bokaro ….. Respondents For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Adv.

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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