1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 534 of 2024 1.Manik Dey, aged about 42 years, son of Bishwanath Dey, 2.Laxmi Devi, aged about 37 years, Wife of Manik Dey, 3.Goutam Kumar Dey, aged about 18 ½ years, Son of Manik Dey All R/o-Chandankiyari, P.O +P.S-Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rekha Devi, W/o Nityanand Das, Vill-Chandankiyari, P.O+P.S- Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP ----------- 07/Dated:27th March, 2025 It appears from the office note dated 10.03.2025 and service report of notice kept at Flag-B that the notice has been received by the Respondent No.2 and the letter dated 20.01.2025 has been sent by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Mother of the Victim girl to the learned Registrar General that she is unable to come to Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. 2. Thus, the informant has got information of this case, however, she has not appeared till date. 3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act for grant of bail by challenging the order dated 10.06.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.401 of 2024, arising out of Chas (M) P.S Case No.70 of 2024 by Sri Pawan Kumar No.1, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro by which the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.03.2024 the informant along with her family came to her father’s (Bhuwan Das) house at village Nawadih, P.O-Chiksiya, P.S. Chas(M), Bokaro but in the morning on 23.03.2024, her daughter Rupa Kumari Das aged 15 years old and her date of birth is 01.02.2009. It is further alleged that Sumit Dey, son of Manik Dey, resident of Chandankiyari called to her daughter Rupa Kumar Das from Phone No.6207783082, 9279398039 and 9263991308 and the girl was repeatedly harassed over phone. Her daughter has been kidnapped by him. Sumit’s parents, his brother, his parents also helped him in eloping with her daughter because when the boy used to call the girl repeatedly and she herself went and complained about this to the boy’s parents and brother, then his parents and the cousin ousted her by using castiest words and using filthy language and hence this case. 5. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned APP for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has committed illegality while passing order dated 10.06.2024 by rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant. It is submitted that the Appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 are the father, mother and brother of co-accused Sumit Dey, who is alleged to have taken the Victim girl for the purpose of marriage. It has been submitted that the appellants have neither abused the Victim girl and her parents nor threatened her of dire consequences. It is submitted that the Victim girl on her own will had gone with Sumit Dey at Calcutta. It is submitted that the independent witnesses namely Manoranjan Das, Sukhdeo Sukhdhar and Tarapat Bahuri at para-45, 46 and 47 of the case diary have not supported the occurrence rather they have stated that there was love affair between Sumit Dey and 3 said Victim girl and they have stated that the appellants had neither abused nor threatened the informant and her family members and hence the appellants may be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellants have abused the informant in the name of her caste and threatened her family members and also Victim of dire consequences. It is submitted that the witnesses namely, Nityanand Das, Bhuvan Das and Rajesh Kumar, whose statements have been recorded at para-4, 8 and 9 have supported the prosecution case and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 8. Perused the records of this case and the case diary submitted by the learned APP. 9. It appears from the statement of witnesses namely, Nityanand Das, Bhuvan Das and Rajesh Kumar recorded at para-4, 8 and 9 that no person were present while the appellants were alleged to have abused the informant in the name of her caste. 10. It appears that the appellants are the father, mother and brother of the co-accused Sumit Dey and there is no specific overt act against them except the alleged abusing the informant. 11. Under the circumstances, the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in A.B.P. No.401 of 2024, arising out of Chas (M) P.S Case No.70 of 2024, is set aside. 12. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the appellants are directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of Four weeks from the date of this order, the appellants namely, Mainik Dey, Laxmi Devi and Goutam Kumar Dey are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty thousand) each with two sureties 4 of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro/or his Successor Court in connection with Chas (M) P.S Case No.70 of 2024. 13. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.534 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-