2025:JHHC:38695 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 887 of 2025 Shakti Singh, aged about 28 yrs, son of Sant Singh, resident of Village-Bhongala, P.O. & P.S.-Itkhori, District- Chatra. …… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. xxxx ….Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. ----------- 03/Dated:22nd December, 2025 This Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 887 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by Shri S.M. Shahzad, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatrain M.C.A No. 1618 of 2025in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections126(2), 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2)(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per the FIR, seven accused persons are alleged to have abused and assaulted the informant and her nephew and hurled caste based abuses upon the informant. It is also alleged that a gold chain and Rs. 10,000/- of the informant were snatched and they have also made video of the said occurrence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR, although his name has 2025:JHHC:38695 2 appeared in the statement of the Asha Devi and Kedar Kumar Das, whose statements have been recorded in paragraph 29 and 30 of the case diary. It is submitted that the informant and the other witness namely Hari Ravi Das have also not named the appellant. The appellant is in custody since 21.08.2025 and hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. It is further submitted that though the appellant is not named in the FIR but he was also involved in the occurrence. It is further submitted that the witnesses namely Asha Devi and Kedar Kumar Das have been identified in the video which was prepared at the time of the incident. Hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Having heard both the parties and after going through the case diary, it appears that seven persons, who are named in the FIR are alleged to have assaulted the informant and her nephew Hari Ravi Das and also abused them in the name of their caste and also alleged to have snatched a gold chain and Rs. 10,000/- and also have teased the informant. 7. It appears that the informant has not named the appellant in the FIR, however, while watching the videography, the witnesses Asha Ravi Das and Kedar Kumar Das whose statements are recorded in paragraph 29 and 30 of the case diary. 8. Considering the submissions made by both the sides and also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely Shakti Singh is directed to be released on bail on furnishing the bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/-(Rs. Fifteen Thousand 2025:JHHC:38695 3 Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.M. Shahzad, Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chatra or/his Successor Court in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025. 9. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in M.C.A No. 1618 of 2025 in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025 is set aside. 10 Thus, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 887 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 22.12.2025 Rashmi/- Uploaded on