2025:JHHC:17552 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 645 of 2024 1.Dineshwar Yadav @ Dineshwar @ Dinesh Yadav, aged about 52 years, son of Badho Yadav 2. Chandesar Yadav @ Chanderdev Yadav, aged about 49 years, son of Badho Yadav, 3.Nitu Kumari, aged about 18 years, daughter of Dineshwar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav, All are residents of Village Kharauna, P.O. & P.S-Hunterganj, District-Chatra …… Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sanjay Das, son of Late Mahjar Das, resident of village Mayapur Khurd, Tola Malikdih, P.O. & P.S-Hunterganj, District-Chatra ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate ----------- 07/Dated:01st July, 2025 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 anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by Sri S.M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Chatra in A.B.P. No.769 of 2024, arising out of Hunterganj P.S Case No.58 of 2024 by which the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2. It is alleged in the F.I.R that on the alarm raised by one Nitu Kumari (Appellant No.3), the appellants and four other persons as named in the F.I.R had arrived at the place of occurrence and the co-accused Sanjay Yadav alleged to have 2025:JHHC:17552 2 assaulted Guddu Das i.e. the son of the informant by knife due to which he sustained grievous injury in his rib. 3. Heard Mrs. Jasvinda Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State and Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellants is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It has been submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties. It is submitted that for the same date of occurrence i.e. on 14.03.2024 the appellant no.3- Nitu Kumari had instituted Hunterganj P.S Case No.59 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 376/511/323/504/506/379/34 of IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that by way of retaliation the informant has instituted the present case against all the family members of the appellants including the appellants. It is further submitted that the main allegation is against co-accused Sanjay Yadav for assaulting the son of the informant by knife and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that Guddu Das i.e. the son of the informant had sustained grievous injury which has been found by the doctor and is mentioned at paragraph 152 of the case diary and injury report has been enclosed separately. It is submitted that the informant and several witnesses have supported the allegation against the appellants and hence their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected. 2025:JHHC:17552 3 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, after adopting the submissions of learned APP, has submitted that witnesses namely Dilip Yadav, Ramawtar Yadav and Bifan Yadav have supported the allegations of the informant and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R and the case diary and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. From perusal of the F.I.R and the case diary, it appears that that on 14.03.2024 while the Appellant No.3-Nitu Kumari had gone to attend the call of nature then Guddu Das is said to have attempted to commit rape upon her and for which she had instituted Hunterganj P.S Case No.59 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 376/511/323/504/506/379/34 of IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act for which a Panchyati was also held. In the meantime, one co-accused Sanjay Das is alleged to have arrived at the place of occurrence and is said to have assaulted the injured namely Guddu Das i.e. the son of the informant. 9. Under the circumstances, the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Chatra in A.B.P. No.769 of 2024, arising out of Hunterganj P.S Case No.58 of 2024, is set aside. 10. Accordingly, considering the facts that the Appellant No.3-Nitu Kumari has herself victimized by the informant side and the entire family members have been implicated, the appellants namely, Dineshwar Yadav @ Dineshwar @ Dinesh Yadav, Chandesar Yadav @ Chanderdev Yadav and Nitu Kumari are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) each with two 2025:JHHC:17552 4 sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri S.M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Chatra/or his Successor Court in A.B.P. No.769 of 2024, arising out of Hunterganj P.S Case No.58 of 2024, subject to the condition laid under Section 482 of the BNSS. 11. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.645 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-