2025:JHHC:27650 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 275 of 2025 …. Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Chandeshar Yadav @ Chandesar Yadav, resident of Village- Kharauna, Chatra, PO & PS- Hunterganj, District- Chatra …… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sanjay Das, son of Late Mahjar Das, resident of Village- Mayapur Khurd, Tola Malikdih, PO & PS- Hunterganj, District- Chatra ..… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A. P. P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Shekhar Sidharth, Advocate …… ORAL ORER IN COURT 03/10.09.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Sri S.M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Chatra in A.B.P. No. 115 of 2025, arising out of Hunterganj P.S Case No. 58 of 2024 by which the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per FIR, the son of the appellant is alleged to have misbehaved with one Nitu Kumari and on the alarm raised by said Nitu Kumari, the appellant and four other persons as named in the F.I.R had arrived at the place of occurrence and the appellant-Sanjay Yadav is alleged to have assaulted Guddu Das i.e. the son of the informant by knife due to which he sustained grievous injury in his rib and other co-accused had also assaulted 2025:JHHC:27650 -2- the family members of the Informant. 3. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State and Mr. Shekhar Sidharth, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellant is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It has been submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the allegation against the appellant for assaulting Guddu Das i.e the son of the Informant is false and concocted. It is submitted that three co-accused namely Dineshwar Yadav @ Dineshwar @ Dinesh Yadav and Chandesar Yadav @ Chanderdev Yadav and Nitu Kumari have been enlarged on Anticipatory Bail in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 645 of 2024 vide order dated 01.07.2025 by this Court. It is submitted that even the victim girl Nitu Kumari has been made an accused in a false case. It is further submitted that for the same date of occurrence i.e. on 14.03.2024, the victim girl- Nitu Kumari had instituted Hunterganj P. S Case No. 59 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 376/511/323/504/506/379/34 of IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act against the family members of the Informant and hence the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting Guddu Das i.e. the 2025:JHHC:27650 -3- son of the Informant by knife and due to which, he had sustained grievous injury and which has been found by the doctor and which is mentioned at paragraph 152 of the case diary and injury report has been enclosed separately. It is submitted that the Informant and several witnesses have supported the allegation against the appellant and hence his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, after adopting the submissions of learned APP, has submitted that the appellant had assaulted Guddu Das by knife and due to which he sustained grievous injury in his ribs. It is submitted that several witnesses namely Dilip Yadav, Ramawtar Yadav and Bifan Yadav, whose statements have been recorded at para- 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary, have supported the allegations against the appellant and hence the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R and the case diary and injury report and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. From perusal of the Injury Report submitted by the Doctor, it reveals that the injury sustained by the injured-Guddu Das was grievous in nature and 15-20 stitches were required to repair the intense damage. 9. It appears from the FIR that there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting Guddu Das i.e. the son of the Informant, by knife and due to which he sustained grievous injury and however, there is no specific allegations against three co-accused namely Dineshwar Yadav @ Dineshwar @ Dinesh Yadav and Chandesar Yadav @ Chanderdev Yadav and Nitu 2025:JHHC:27650 -4- Kumari, who have been enlarged on Anticipatory Bail in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 645 of 2024 vide order dated 01.07.2025 by this Court. 10. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in this Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 275 of 2025 and hence, the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Sri S.M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Chatra in A.B.P. No. 115 of 2025, arising out of Hunterganj P.S Case No. 58 of 2024 is upheld. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellant is rejected. 12. Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 275 of 2025 is dismissed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 10.09.2025 Kamlesh/