( 2025:JHHC:37075 ) 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.384 of 2025 ------ (Against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.61 of 2025 in SC/ST Case No.2 of 2025 arising out of Jirwabari P.S. Case No.204 of 2024) ------ Sayed Arshad Nasar, aged about 52 years, S/o Sayed Abu Nasar, R/o Charyari, P.O. and P.S.-Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura (Bihar). … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Krishna Kumar Kisku, S/o Binod Bihari Manjhi, aged about 36 years, R/o DMO Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.-Jirwabari, Dist.-Sahibganj (Jharkhand). Permanent Address: TELO, Chandrapura, P.O. & P.S.-Chandrapura, Dist.-Bokaro (Jharkhand). … Respondents ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Appeal under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.61 of 2025 in SC/ST Case No.2 of 2025 arising out of Jirwabari P.S. Case No.204 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:37075 ) 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.384 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 221, 224, 132, 352, 351(2) (3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sahibganj whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sahibganj has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant as the investigation was not complete. 3. The brief facts of the case is that while the informant-District Mining Officer asked the appellant for the reason of his visit to his office, then the appellant warned him to withdraw the case filed by the informant against him and threatened him of dire consequences unless he does so and when the informant refused to do so, the appellant abused him in filthy language using caste specific words and warned him to implicate him in false cases and tore the files which were in the hand of the informant and fled away and while fleeing threatened to destroy all the office and staff of the office. The learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court considered that the witnesses have supported the role of the appellant in commission of the offence and investigation is still pending and rejected the prayer for regular bail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and in the meanwhile, charge sheet has already been submitted and charge has also been framed, but no witnesses has turned up as yet during the trial. It is next submitted that the case is next fixed to 08.12.2025, but no witnesses has been examined by ( 2025:JHHC:37075 ) 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.384 of 2025 the prosecution. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court failed to consider that no serious offence has been committed by the appellant and the informant was bent upon filing series of cases against the appellant. It is next submitted that learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, also failed to take into consideration that the case which was told by the appellant to be withdrawn by the informant has in fact ended up in acquittal of the appellant vide Judgment dated 23.08.2023 in G.R. Case No.1328 of 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant is a social activist and is protesting against illegal mining and cutting of forest area and filed several petitions before the National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone, Kolkata. It is then submitted that the appellant undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant, if released on bail and will not go to or near the office of the informant during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the appellant be admitted to bail. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant made in this appeal and submit that keeping in view the conduct of the appellant, he ought not be admitted to bail and the learned court below having rightly rejected the prayer for regular bail, hence, this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed. ( 2025:JHHC:37075 ) 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.384 of 2025 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the appellant has been in custody since 09.01.2025, the charge sheet has already been submitted and charge has already been framed against the appellant. Though, four dates have been passed to which the case was fixed for evidence, but not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. 7. Considering the change in circumstances as well as the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that no witness has been examined by the prosecution as yet in last four dates to which the case was fixed for evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant be admitted to bail, hence, the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.61 of 2025 in SC/ST Case No.2 of 2025 arising out of Jirwabari P.S. Case No.204 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. 8. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in connection with Jirwabari P.S. Case No.204 of 2024 with the condition that the appellant will co- operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not go to or near the office of the informant and ( 2025:JHHC:37075 ) 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ). No.384 of 2025 will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the trial of the case. 9. This appeal is allowed accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 05th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 11/12/2025