2025:JHHC:10703 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.832 of 2024 …. Birbal Pandey, aged about 31 years, son of Shivnarayan Pandey, resident of Village-Dewariya, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, District-Chatra ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Paswan aged about 35 years, son of Late Kedar Paswan, residence of Village- New Police Line, Murtiya Toli, Chotki Dewariya, P.O. P.S.-Sadar Chatra ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Ms. Anshu Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Rajwardhan, Advocate …… Order No.05/07.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 832 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 08.10.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1239 of 2024 by Sri S.M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.17 of 2024, for the offences instituted under Sections 341,323,379,354,436,504,506 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act for which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. As per the FIR, it is alleged that the FIR was lodged on 08.01.2024 arising out of SC/ST Complaint case No.33 of 2023, in which the appellant and his family members are alleged to have kept bricks over land of Khata No.110, Plot No.837 which belongs to the informant and he is said to have abused him in the name of his caste. It is also alleged that the instant appellant Birbal Pandey 2025:JHHC:10703 2 pulled the saree of wife of informant due to which her modesty was outraged and one of the accused is also alleged to have snatched the gold earrings and payal of wife of the Informant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable. It is submitted that complaint was filed after delay after more than four months and the occurrence took place 09.06.2023 but complaint case was filed on 19.10.2023. It is submitted that the land in question belongs to the appellant and the Informant is falsely claiming upon the same. It is submitted that the charges have been framed against the appellant on 10.03.2025 and the appellant is in custody since 07.09.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant and his family members for abusing the informant. It is submitted that the appellant had pulled the Saree of wife of informant. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has also opposed the prayer for bail and further submitted that the land in question is belongs to the informant. It is further submitted that the appellant is the main person, had pulled the Saree of wife of the Informant due to which her modesty has outraged and hence it is submitted that there is specific allegation against the appellant and others for abusing the family members of the informant in the name of his caste and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Perused the FIR, the case arising out of SC/ST Complaint case No.33 of 2023. 2025:JHHC:10703 3 8. It appears that the occurrence was alleged to be taken place on 09.06.2023 but the FIR was after delay of four (04) months ten (10) days i.e. on 19.10.2023. 9. It also appears that the entire members of the family has made accused in this case. 10. It further appears that even the FIR was lodged on 08.01.2024 of filing of the complaint petition. 11. From perusal of the case, it would appear that the appellant is alleged to pulled the saree of wife of the informant. 12. It also appears that the police submitted the chargesheet against the appellant but the statement of victim Sunita Devi has not been recorded in the case diary. However, the statement of wife of the Informant has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Case Diary produced by the learned APP before Court which has been mentioned in upto para 78 and 79. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and custody of the appellant, the appellant namely Birbal Pandey is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) each with two 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 connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.17 of 2024. 14. Under the circumstances, the order dated 08.10.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1239 of 2024 by Sri S.M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.17 of 2024 is set aside. 15. Thus, This Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.832 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-