2025:JHHC:30692 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 406 of 2025 …. Ritik Kumar Singh aged about 23 years S/o Nirbhay Singh, Resident of Village- Choura, PO + PS- Balbadda, District- Godda …… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Suman Mirdha S/o Shri Ram Roop Mirdha, Resident of Village- Bhalua, PO + PS- Meharma, District- Godda ..… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate For the State : (1) Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P. P. (2) Ms. Divya, Advocate For the Resp No. 2. : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate …… 09/26.09.2025 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 406 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Godda in A. B. P. No. 91 of 2025 arising out of Balbadda P. S. Case No. 59 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 324(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 (1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act by which the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per the FIR, the appellant is alleged to have dragged the Informant from the Car and assaulted him and thereafter broken the glass of the car and damaged the entire car on 19.11.2024 at 10.00 P.M. in the night. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the allegation against the appellant for assaulting the informant 2025:JHHC:30692 -2- and for damaging his case are false and concocted and taken place on the eve of election. It is submitted that specific name of caste has not been taken by the appellant as has been alleged by the Informant. It is submitted that the appellant is a student and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and hence, the appellants may be enlarged on Anticipatory Bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for Anticipatory Bail and has submitted that several witnesses namely Md. Shahid Gani and Jay Kumar Singh, whose statements are recorded at para-16 and 19 of the case diary, have fully supported the case for assault and abuse and hence, prayer for Anticipatory Bail may be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the appellant has brutally assaulted the Informant and abused him in the name of his Caste and which have been supported by the several witnesses namely Md. Shahid Gani and Jay Kumar Singh in para-16 and 19 of the case diary and hence, prayer for Anticipatory Bail may be rejected. 8. Perused the records of this case and case diary and considered the submissions of learned counsels for both the sides. 9. It appears that the appellant is alleged to have abused the Informant in the name of his Caste and assaulting him by dragging him and broken the glass of his Car and damaged the entire Car. 10. It appears that the occurrence taken place on 19.11.2024 and FIR was lodged on 20.11.2024. 11. It also appears that there is overwriting in the date of written application given by the Informant in lodging the FIR. 12. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that some of the witnesses namely Md. Shahid Gani and Jay Kumar Singh in para-16 and 19 of the case diary have claimed that the appellant had abused the Informant in the name of his Caste, but from perusal of the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State, it appears that 2025:JHHC:30692 -3- no injury report has been enclosed. 13. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the witnesses namely Dilip Das, Pappu Kumar Singh, Rajeshwar Singh, Jaykishan Singh, Siyaram Singh, Kumod Bhagat, Arun Harijan and Promod Singh, whose statement have been recorded at para- 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 respectively of the case diary, they had also stated that it was dark night and due to which people were not identified but the appellant was not present there. 14. It further appears that even the broken glass of the Car has not been brought on record by the Investigating Officer during his investigation. It also appears that nothing is on record to show that the Car was damaged. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant- Ritik Kumar Singh is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the appellant is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Godda in connection with Balbadda P. S. Case No. 59 of 2024 and also subject to the condition of the provisions of Section 482(2) of BNSS 2023. 16. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 406 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Godda in A. B. P. No. 91 of 2025 arising out of Balbadda P. S. Case No. 59 of 2024 is, hereby, set aside. 17. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 406 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 26.09.2025 Kamlesh/