2025:JHHC:37207 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 712 of 2025 …. 1. Yogendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Vishun Yadav, 2. Vikram Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o Yogendra Prasad Yadav, both are R/o Village- Dhobani, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurkip, District- Garhwa, State- Jharkhand. ……Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sharwan Korwa, S/o Bhagwan Korwa, R/o Village- Kumbakala, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurkip, District- Garhwa, State- Jharkhand. ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P …… Order No.06/10.12.2025 After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw this Criminal Appeal so far as the Appellant No. 2, namely, Vikram Kumar Yadav is concerned. 2. Thus, the Criminal Appeal for grant of Anticipatory Bail on behalf of Appellant No. 2 is permitted to be withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants is pressing this appeal only for grant of Anticipatory Bail of the Appellant No. 1, namely, Yogendra Prasad Yadav. 4. The present Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 712 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 218 of 2025 arising out of Dhurki P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 11 of 2025 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh-II, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nagar Untari, registered for the offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) of BNS & under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST 2025:JHHC:37207 -2- Act by which the prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected. 5. As per F.I.R, the appellant No. 2 is alleged to have demanded certain amount of Rs. 4000/- from the Informant as a bribe for getting the house approved from the Government. It is also alleged that some people of the community also informed that Vikram Kumar Yadav (original appellant no. 2) has taken Rs. 4,000/- from them. It is also alleged that on 31.01.2025, the Appellant No. 1, namely, Yogendra Prasad Yadav has abused the Informant in the name of his caste and also threatened him of dire consequences. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant no. 1, Yogendra Prasad Yadav has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that there is no allegation of demanding bribe on behalf of the appellant No. 1, rather it is attributed to the original appellant no. 2, Vikram Kumar Yadav. It is submitted that even the allegation of demanding bribe by Vikram Kumar Yadav is not correct. It is submitted that merely calling the informant in the name of his caste is not an offence under the SC/ST Act and hence, Appellant No. 1, namely, Yogendra Prasad Yadav may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the son of the appellant no. 1 was demanding money from local villagers for giving bribe to some Officer. It is submitted that the appellant no. 1 has abused the Informant in the name of his caste and also threatened him of dire consequences. It is further submitted that 2025:JHHC:37207 -3- four witnesses, namely, Anil Korwa, Parmeshwar Korwa, Vimal Mahto and Jaimal Korwa, whose statements have been recorded in Paragraph Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Case Diary, have supported the allegations against the appellant no. 1 and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant no. 1 may be rejected. 8. Perused the Case Diary, F.I.R. and records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides. 9. It appears from the F.I.R., that the original appellant no. 2, namely, Vikram Kumar Yadav is alleged to have demanded Rs. 4,000/- from several villagers including the Informant. 10. It also appears from the Case Diary that so far allegation against Appellant No. 1, namely, Yogendra Prasad Yadav is concerned, he is only alleged to have abused the Informant in the name of his Caste Korwa. It also appears that on 31.01.2025 while the informant was coming with Kalamuddin Ansari but the said Kalamuddin Ansari has not been examined by the Police. 11. It also appears that the occurrence took place on 31.01.2025, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.02.2025 i.e. after delay of 12 days. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant no. 1, Yogendra Prasad Yadav is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh-II, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nagar Untari Dhurki in connection with P.S. Case No. 12 2025:JHHC:37207 -4- of 2025, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 11 of 2025. 13. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 712 of 2025 is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh-II, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Nagar Untari arising out of Dhurki P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 11 of 2025 is set aside. 14. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 712 of 2025 is allowed in part. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated : 10.12.2025 Vedanti/- Uploaded on 19/12/2025