1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 169 of 2025 …. Rohit Kumar @ Rohit, aged about 23 yrs. S/o Arjun Ram, R/o Katras, Near Railway Station, P.O. & P.S. Katras, Dist. Dhanbad ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nandu Kumar, (ASI), S/o – Kamta Singh, Permanent R/o- Village-Bisun Bigha, P.O. &P.S.- Akori Gola, Dist.-Rohtas (Bihar) Presently posted at Katras, P.S. (Dhanbad), P.O. & P.S.- Katras Dist.-Dhanbad ……Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP For the Informant : None …… Order No. /28.03.2025 It appears that pursuant to the other dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Navneet Kumar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, the notice has already been served to the Informant-ASI through the concerned Police Station and for which the learned counsel for the State has also filed counter affidavit on 26.03.2025, which has been placed by the Office todayi.e. on 28.03.2025. 2. Let it be kept in record. 3. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in M.C.A No.56 of 2025 by Sri R.K. Pathak, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st-cum-I/C Special Judge SC/ST, by which the prayer for bail filed by the appellant has been rejected in connection with Katras P.S. Case No.01 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115 (2), 109(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 132 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(r), 3(s) of Scheduled 2 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. As per the F.I.R. it is alleged that the Informant while he was on his duty on 31.12.2024 on the eve of New Year and arrived near the Railway Colony then, he found 6-7 youths using aggression and indecent words and when he forbade them, then all of them started abused and scuffled with him. In the meantime, he informed the matter to the other police personnels, then one Sohan Tudu arrived there. However, then the accused persons also abused him. It is alleged that due to assault made by the accused person, he sustained injuries on his face, hand and leg and Sohan Tudu also sustained injuries on left hand and shoulder. 5. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned APP. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is himself a member of Scheduled Caste and his father Arjun Ram is also a Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed the Caste Certificate of his father dated 05.09.1989 issued by then Block Development Officer, Baghmara which has been enclosed as Annexure 2 in this case. It is submitted that the appellant is named in this case on the basis of confession of co-accused namely Praveen Singh, who named the appellant and other persons in his confessional statement. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 01.01.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant had assaulted and abused the Informant by his caste. It is submitted that even the another accused persons had assaulted Sohan Tudu who was the 3 companion of the Informant and who had also sustained injuries. It is submitted that the appellant had taken alcohol and they were in drunken condition on the eve of New Year i.e. 31.12.2024 and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State and going through the records of this appeal, it appears that a scuffle had taken place between the accused persons including the appellant on the one hand and the police official i.e. the Informant and his companion on the other hand. The nature of allegation appears to be general and omnibus nature against the appellant. 9. It appears that no specific overt act has been committed by the appellant. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the custody of the appellant, the appellant Rohit Kumar @ Rohit is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousands) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri. R.K. Pathak, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st-cum-I/C Special Judge SC/ST, Dhanbad or his Successor Court in connection with MCA No. 56 of 2025 arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.01/2025. The order dated 01.02.2025 passed in MCA No.56 of 2025 by Sri R.K. Pathak, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st-cum-I/C Special Judge SC/ST, Dhanbad is set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.169 of 2025 is allowed. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-