2025:JHHC:21138 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.82 of 2025 ------ 1. Sandev Mirdha @ Samdev Mirdha, S/o Late Jagdev Mirdha, R/o Village- Birana, PO- Rajan Amar Kunda Sahara, P.S. Jarmundi, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 2. Kesho Mirdha, S/o Late Jagdev Mirdha, R/o Village- Birana, PO- Rajan Amar Kunda Sahara, P.S. Jarmundi, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. Suresh Mirdha, S/o Late Jagdev Mirdha, R/o Village- Birana, PO- Rajan Amar Kunda Sahara, P.S. Jarmundi, District- Dumka, Jharkhand .... .... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Pradeep Kumar Mirdha, S/o Late Ghuteshvar Mirdha, R/o Village- Mathurabeltikri, PO- Sahara, PS- Jarmundi, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Ravi, Advocate ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 30.07.2025. 1. The instant Crl. Appeal (SJ) has been preferred under Section 14 A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka, in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 corresponding to Complaint Case No.25 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506/ 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 (1) (s) (w) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 whereby, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that all the offences are bailable in nature save and except under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as no overt act has been attributed against the appellants. 3. It is further submitted that plain reading of the complaint will not disclose an offence under Section 3 (1)(w) as it is not a case of sexual assault. There is no direct allegation that appellants called informant by his caste name. Allegation is that he called people in general and not the informant. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and 2025:JHHC:21138 2 the case has been lodged because of land dispute which will be evident from the Annexure-2 annexed with the instant Appeal. 4. It is submitted within counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that there was no land dispute with the petitioner, but the appellants nurturing grudge against the informant as an encroachment proceeding was initiated and the notice was issued against the appellants at their instance. Further, proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P. C. was initiated against the appellants at the instance of first party i.e. Jitendra. Informant was also treated as untouchable and not permitted to partake the ‘prasad’ offered in kali puja. He is handicapped and was assaulted by the appellants. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the informant, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order by which the anticipatory bail application has been rejected. Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/