2025:JHHC:11821 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 146 of 2025 Basuki Yadav @ Basudeo Kumar Yadav, aged about 31 years, son of Arjun Mahto, resident of Village Sonardih, P.O. Jamua, P.S-Jamua, O.P. Nawdiha, District Giridih (Jharkhand) …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Gudiya Devi, wife of Prakash Das, resident of Village Sonardih, P.O and P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih (Jharkhand) ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rabindranath, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, APP For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate ----------- 06/Dated:21st April, 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of bail by challenging the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in M.C.A No.35 of 2025 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in connection with SC/ST Complaint Case No.60/2017. 2. As per complaint petition the appellant and other accused persons are alleged to have assaulted and abused the informant in the name of her caste and the appellant is alleged to have pulled the Sari of the complainant-Respondent No.2. 3. Heard Mr. Rabindranath, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Bandana Sinha, learned APP for the State and Mr. Deepak Sahu, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal 2025:JHHC:11821 2 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected. It is submitted that the appellant has not abused and not pulled the Sari of the complainant. It is submitted that the other co- accused have been granted bail by Jharkhand High Court except this appellant. It is submitted that co-accused Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Mahto has been granted bail vide order dated 16.01.2020 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1124 of 2019 by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court. It is submitted that other co-accused persons namely, Gaya Mahto @ Gayo Mahto, Indiya Devi and Fulwa Devi have also been granted regular bail in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2021 on 15.06.2021 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06.01.2025 i.e. for more than three months and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant had pulled the Sari of the complainant and had abused her in the name of caste and also assaulted her and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the argument of the learned APP, has submitted that the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) has granted bail to the co-accused Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Mahto vide order dated 16.01.2020 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1124 of 2019 by pointing out that main allegation is against this appellant for disrobing the informant. It is further submitted that other co-accused had remained in custody for six months and the appellant has remained in custody for 2025:JHHC:11821 3 lesser period. It is submitted that the appellant had also abused the complainant in the name of her caste and had assaulted her by fists and legs and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from going through the records of this case, it would appear that the for the offence taking place on 10.12.2017 the complaint case was filed on 20.12.2017 after delay of 10 days by the Respondent No.2. 8. It further appears that there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant and all other co-accused persons for abusing the informant in the name of her caste and assaulting her. 9. It further appears that though there is specific allegation against the appellant of pulling the Sari. However, the allegation levelled against the appellant appears to be ornamental in nature. 10. The appellant is in custody since 06.01.2025 i.e. for more than three months. 11. It also appears that the informant has got dispute with the other co-accused Gaya Mahto @ Gayo Mahto, Indiya Devi and Arjun Mahto and the land dispute has been decided in favour of the said accused persons vide Civil Appeal No.107 of 2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Giridih by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court below. 12. Considering the fact that the other co-accused have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as mentioned above and the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely, Basuki Yadav @ Basudeo Kumar Yadav is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen 2025:JHHC:11821 4 thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in connection with SC/ST Complaint Case No.60/2017. 13. Under the circumstances, the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in M.C.A No.35 of 2025 by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in connection with SC/ST Complaint Case No.60/2017is set aside. 14. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.146 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-