2025:JHHC:26954 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.701 of 2024 …. 1. Putu Saw @ Sahdev Saw, aged about 50 years son of Kishun Saw, 2. Arjun @ Arun Saw, aged about 59 years s/o Munni Saw, 3. Baldeo Saw, aged about 60 years S/O Kishun Saw, 4. Baso Saw @ Daso Saw @ Jagdish Saw, aged about 33 years S/o Kishun Saw 5. Kirin Saw @ Dilip Saw, aged about 41 years S/o Baso Saw @ Daso Saw @ Jagdish Saw 6. Sunil Saw @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 76 years S/o Baldev Saw 7. Rajesh Saw @ Rajesh Prasad aged about 44 years S/o Baso Saw @ Daso Saw @ Jagdish Saw All resident of village- Mandudih, P.O. & P.S.-Mandu, District- Ramgarh ……Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kiran Devi W/o Mahendra Bhuiyan aged about 37 years resident of village Mandu Chatti, P.O. & P.S.-Mandu District-Ramgarh ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate …… Order No.10/21st August 2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by challenging the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Kusum Kumari, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in ABP No.273 of 2024 in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No.175 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Section 126(2), 115(2), 76, 352, 351(2), 324(2), 3(5) of B.N.S and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act by which the prayer of anticipatory bail has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP 2025:JHHC:26954 2 as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 3. As per FIR, the appellants and 6 other co-accused persons are alleged to have arrived at the house of Informant on 20.07.2024 in the evening and assaulted her and due to which her cloth was torn and sari was opened and all of them have damaged the entire articles of her house and they were having armed with Farsa and Tangi and they have also assaulted her husband and children. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants have not committed any offence. It is submitted that the Informant had constructed the house in the forest land and which was objected by the forest officials. It is submitted that the allegations of damaging the house of the Informant was not found during the investigation by the enquiry office and no torn sari was produced. It is submitted that the injury report of neither the informant nor the injured has been produced by the Investigation Officer in the case Diary. It is submitted that the appellants had informed the Forest Official that the Informant had encroached the Forest land and for which the Informant has falsely implicated the appellants and hence, the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellants and other co-accused for assaulting the Informant and her family member and also for damaging her house. It is submitted that though the torn sari and injury report had not been produced but the Informant and several other witnesses have supported the allegations. It is submitted that the 2025:JHHC:26954 3 witnesses namely Mahendra Bhuiyan, Pooja Devi and Sudhir Prasad, whose statement have been recorded in paragraph-13, 14 and 15, have fully supported the prosecution case. Even the Informant has stated in her subsequent statement at paragraph 4 by supporting the prosecution case. Hence, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has submitted that the appellants and other co-accused person had threaten the informant and her family members and also assaulted them. It is submitted that the Informant and her husband are poor persons and are residing in the forest land and which had been objected by the appellants several times and threatened them to oust from her house and hence their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 20.07.2025 but the FIR was lodged on 22.07.2025. 8. It appears that the injury report of neither the Informant nor the injured children have been brought on record by the police during the investigation. 9. It also appears from the para-11 of the Case Diary is the place of occurrence but there was nothing to show that there was damage of property or any articles of the Informant. 10. From para-44 of the case diary, it reveals that the Informant could not produce any paper with regard to the land in question although the appellants also could not produce any paper with regard to the land in question. 11. It also appears that the para-53 of the Case Diary, it 2025:JHHC:26954 4 reveals that the Information could not produce any paper of land in question as demanded by the I.O. 12. It also appears from the Investigation of the I.O. that the Informant has been residing in the forest land which has also been claimed by the appellants. 13. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants namely appellant no.1 namely Putu Saw @ Sahdev Saw, appellant no.2 namely Arjun @ Arun Saw, appellant no.3 namely Baldeo Saw, appellant no.4 namely Baso Saw @ Daso Saw @ Jagdish Saw, appellant no.5 namely Kirin Saw @ Dilip Saw, appellant no.6 namely Sunil Saw @ Sunil Kumar, appellant no.7 Rajesh Saw @ Rajesh Prasad, are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the appellants are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing their bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Kusum Kumari, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No.175 of 2024. 14. However, it will be desirable that the appellants shall maintain peace and shall not threaten the Informant during pendency of this case. 15. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Kusum Kumari, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in ABP No.273 of 2024 in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No.175 of 2024 is set aside. 16. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.701 of 2024 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-