2025:JHHC:32821 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 725 of 2025 1.Gaya Prasad Sahu @ Gaya Sahu, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Bhagwan Sahu, R/o Village-Palkot Road, Gumla, P.O & P.S- Gumla, District Gumla (Jharkhand) 2.Binod Prasad Soni, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Laxmi Soni @ Laxmi Prasad Soni, R/o Village-D.S.P Road, Gumla, P.O & P.S- Gumla, District Gumla (Jharkhand)…… Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sudhir Khariya, S/o Late Bodra Khariya, R/o Sarna Toli, Palkot Road, Gumla, P.O & P.S-Gumla, District Gumla (Jharkhand) ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP For the Resp. No.2 : None ----------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT 07/Dated:31st October, 2025 It appears from the office note and the service report sent by the learned Judge, In charge, (Nazarat), Civil Court, Gumla that notice has been served upon the complainant-Respondent No.2 on 23.09.2025. However, when the case is called out, none appears for the Respondent No.2. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No.381 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No.165 2025:JHHC:32821 2 of 2019 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. 3. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP for the State. 4. As per complaint case, the appellants and other accused persons alleged to have abused the complainant in the name of his caste and the Appellant No.1- Gaya Prasad Sahu @ Gaya Sahu has been alleged for opening the shop upon the land of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. It is submitted that the appellants are the owners of the land in question. It is submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated and in which report was also called for by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Gumla and in which it was found that there is land dispute between the parties for a long period. It is submitted that the complainant is a criminal minded man and has several criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the co- accused Ful Kumari Devi @ Fulo Devi and Abhishek Prasad have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi) of this Court vide order dated 25.06.2024 in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.412 of 2023 and during course of the argument learned counsel has produced the web- copy of the same, let it be kept on record. It is submitted that from perusal of the complaint, it would appear that no case under the provisions of Section 3(1) (f) (g) (r) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the appellants and the co- 2025:JHHC:32821 3 accused have abused the informant in the name of his caste. It is submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and hence there is possibility of abusing the informant by the appellants and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the complainant has admitted the land dispute in the complaint between both the sides. 8. It appears that there is no specific date of giving abuse in the name of his caste by the appellants to the complainant. 9. It also appears from the complaint petition that the complainant has also enclosed the proceedings of S.A.R Case No.176 of 1988-1989 instituted against the appellants and other co-accused. 10. It also appears that the complaint has also enclosed the order passed earlier in Section 144 proceeding by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Gumla. 11. It appears that the complainant has admitted that the appellants and other persons had opened their shop and they are in possession of the same. 12. Under the circumstances, the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No.381 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No.165 of 2019, is set aside. 13. Accordingly, considering that there is land dispute between parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants namely, Gaya Prasad Sahu @ Gaya Sahu and Binod Prasad Soni are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty 2025:JHHC:32821 4 Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Prem Shankar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No.381 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No.165 of 2019. 14. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.725 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 31.10.2025 Saket/-