2025:JHHC:29746 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 219 of 2025 …. 1. Mithlesh Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Nagendra Singh, Resident of Village- Dhobiyajharan, PO and PS- Murup, District- Latehar 2. Parmeshwar Singh, aged about 38 years 3. Kaushal Singh, aged about 34 years Appellant No. 2 to 3 are sons of Rambir Singh @ Ramvir Singh Resident of Vill- Murki, Kumar Tola, PO- Areya PS- Senha, District Lohardaga …… Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. (i) Anup Munda (ii) Santosh Munda (iii) Manoj Munda (iv) Vinod Munda all son of Late Jagdeo Munda, Vill- Murki, Kumar Tola, PO- Areya PS- Senha, District Lohardaga ..… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, A. P. P. For the Resps.2(I) to 2(IV): Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate …… 09/24.09.2025 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 219 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by challenging the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Lohardaga in A. B. P. No. 390 of 2024 arising out of Senha P. S. Case No. 86 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 352, 351 (3) and 324(5)/3 (5) of BNS and Sections 3 (i)(s)/3(1)(za) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act by which the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2. As per the FIR, the appellants are alleged to have 2025:JHHC:29746 -2- assaulted and abused the Informant’s side in the name of their caste and threatened them of dire consequences. 3. I. A. No 10113 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellants and the respondent nos. 2(i) to 2 (iv) by filing joint compromise petition and which has been signed by learned counsels from both the sides and also affidavits have been filed on behalf of the appellants and the respondent nos. 2(i) to 2 (iv). 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2(i) to 2 (iv). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case has been compromised between the appellants and the Informant’s side and a joint compromise petition has been filed by way of I. A. No 10113 of 2025. It is submitted that there is no dispute between the appellant and the respondent nos. 2(i) to 2 (iv) and hence, the appellants may be enlarged on Anticipatory Bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that necessary order may be passed. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 2(i) to 2 (iv) has admitted the factum of compromise and submitted that the case has been compromised between both the sides and they have no objection of order is passed in favour of the petitioner. 8. Perused the Records of this case and I. A. No 10113 of 2025 and considered the submissions of learned counsels for both the sides. 9. Paragraph no.s-5, 6, 7 and 8 of I. A. No 10113 of 2025 read as follows:- “Para-5:- That it is stated and submitted that due to intervention of the friends and well-wishers, during the pendency of the instant criminal appeal, the parties have 2025:JHHC:29746 -3- amicably settled the present dispute out of their own sweet will and now the respondent nos. 2(I)-2 (IV) do not want to proceed in the matter. Para-6:- That the parties have voluntarily agreed to amicably settle their dispute without any pressure, coercion or without any threat of any kind. Para-7:- That it is stated and submitted that so in view of the said developments, the respondent nos.2(1) to 2(IV) have no grievance against the appellants as well as against the other two accused persons apart from the appellants. Para-8:- That there is no existing enmity between the patties and they are willing to continue cordial relation with each other.” 10. It appears that the case has been compromised between the both the sides and for which a joint compromise petition has also been filed by filing I. A. No. 10113 of 2025. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the case has been compromised between the both the sides, the appellants-Mithlesh Singh, Parmeshwar Singh and Kaushal Singh 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 their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Lohardaga/ or his Successor Court in connection with Senha P. S. Case No. 86 of 2024. 12. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 219 of 2025 is 2025:JHHC:29746 -4- allowed. 13. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Lohardaga in A. B. P. No. 390 of 2024 arising out of Senha P. S. Case No. 86 of 2024 is, hereby, set aside. 14. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 219 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 24.09.2025 Kamlesh/