( 2025:JHHC:30457 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 383 of 2025 ------ 1. Bharat Prasad @ Bharat Prasad Sinha 2. Mukesh Kumar Sinha 3. Umesh Kumar Sinha 4. Nilesh Kumar Sinha 5. Rakesh Kumar Sinha ……Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shri Monu Rajak .…..Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Praveen Shankar Pd. Advocate ------ Order No: 03/ Dated: 25.09.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the order dated 17.03.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 117 of 2025 by Sri Pawan Kumar, No. 1, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in connection with Sector 4, (SC/ST) P.S Case No. 50 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C and also for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by which the anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2. As per the F.I.R lodged on 18.11.2022, the Appellant No. 2 Mukesh Kumar Sinha and Appellant No. 3 Umesh Kumar Sinah are alleged to have caught hold of both the hands of the informant from behind and the appellant no. 4 Nilesh Kumar ( 2025:JHHC:30457 ) 2 Sinha and appellant no. 5 Rakesh Kumar Sinha are alleged to have assaulted the informant due to which, he became unconscious and the chocolates of the informant worth Rs. 30,000/- were damaged whereas, the appellant no. 1 Bharat Prasad @ Bharat Prasad Sinha is alleged to have abused the informant in the name of his caste in public view. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. It is submitted that the appellant no. 1 has instituted a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 343 of 2022 against the informant and some other persons namely Monu Rajak, Raju Rajak, Hiralal Rajak, Vikky Rajak, Manohar Lal Rajak and Ravi Rajak for assaulting and damaging the “Bandstand (Chabutara)” in front of his house while he was constructing the “Bandstand (Chabutara)”. It is submitted that the Complaint Case No. 343 of 2022 was filed on 06.04.2022 and when the police failed to take action against them and then, the appellant no. 1 had filed Complaint Case No. 343 of 2022 and then vide order dated 14.12.2022, the learned Court below had taken cognizance against the informant Monu Rajak for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 379, 452, 504 and 427 of the I.P.C and had also taken cognizance against Raju Rajak, Hiralal Rajak, Vikky Rajak, Manohar Lal Rajak and Ravi Kumar for the offences under Sections 147, 427, 323, 452, 504 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to ( 2025:JHHC:30457 ) 3 produce any Injury Report of the appellant and also the interested witnesses have been examined by the informant and the police and hence, the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant no. 1 for abusing the informant in the name of his caste in public view and the appellant no. 2 to 5 have assaulted him mercilessly. It is submitted that the informant in his subsequent statement and other witnesses namely Birbal Sao, Munna Sao and Pankaj Sharma at Para-10, 11 and 12 of the case diary, have supported the occurrence against the appellants. It is submitted that the independent witnesses namely Ravi Kumar Sao and Tinku Kumar Sao, whose statements were recorded at Para-46 and 47 of the case diary, have also supported the allegation against the appellants and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submissions of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that all the appellants have abused and assaulted the informant and the informant had became unconscious due to assault made by the appellant no. 2 to 5. It is submitted that several independent witnesses mentioned above have supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R, case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that the occurrence of abuse and assaulted had taken place on 12.11.2022, however, the F.I.R was lodged on ( 2025:JHHC:30457 ) 4 18.11.2022 i.e. after delay of six (06) days by the informant and for which, there is no explanation. 9. From perusal of the entire case diary, it appears that the charge sheet had been submitted, however, the informant has not been examined by any Doctor and no Injury Report has been brought on record. Although, as per the allegation made in the F.I.R, the informant had became unconscious due to mercilessly assault made by the appellant nos. 2 to 5. Thus, the allegations of assault made in the F.I.R is not substantiated. 10. It further appears that so far as the independent witnesses namely Ravi Kumar Sao and Tinku Kumar Sao are concerned, their statements were recorded on 15.07.2024 i.e. after the delay of approximately around 20 months from the date of occurrence whereas, other witnesses namely Birbal Sao, Munna Sao and Pankaj Sharma are concerned, their statements were recorded on 29.11.2022 i.e. after delay of ten (10) days. 11. It also appears that though, the informant has alleged that the chocolates worth Rs. 30,000/- were destroyed by the acts of the appellants but nothing was found by the I.O from the place of occurrence. 12. It further appears that the appellant no. 1 has instituted a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 343 of 2022 against the informant and some other persons for obstructing the construction of “Bandstand (Chabutara)” which has also been admitted by the witnesses namely Ravi Kumar Sao and Tinku Kumar Sao at Para-46 and 47 of the case diary. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 117 of 2025 by Sri Pawan ( 2025:JHHC:30457 ) 5 Kumar, No. 1, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in connection with Sector 4, (SC/ST) P.S Case No. 50 of 2022 is set aside. 14. In view of the above, the appellant no. 1 namely Bharat Prasad @ Bharat Prasad Sinha, Appellant No. 2 namely Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Appellant No. 3 Umesh Kumar Sinha, Appellant No. 4 Nilesh Kumar Sinha and Appellant No. 5 Rakesh Kumar Sinha are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of arrest or surrender, the appellants are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing their respective bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Pawan Kumar, No. 1, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, Bokaro/or his successor Court in connection with Sector 4, (SC/ST) P.S Case No. 50 of 2022 subject to the condition of the provisions of Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 15. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 383 of 2025 is allowed. Dated: 25.09.2025 (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/