2026:JHHC:11420 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1034 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1034 of 2025 1.Sushil Nath, aged about 69 years, S/o Rameshwar Nath, Resident of -Zone No. 6 Birsanagar, P.O. & P.S.- Birsanagar, Jamshedpur District- East Singhbhum(Jharkhand) 2.Inderjeet Singh @ Chotu Singh, aged about 37 years S/O Hardip Singh, Resident of -H. No. 299, Birsanagar zone no. 06, P.O. & P.S.- Birsanagar, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Raj Kishore Mukhi, S/o Late Shankar Mukhi @ Mukesh Mukhi, R/o Ghorabandha, Dalkham Basti, P.O P.S.- Govindpur, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum(Jharkhand) ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, Advocate 03/20.04.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants , learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2-victim. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge SC/ST(POA) Act, Jamshedpur in connection with A.B.P. No. 1646 of 2025 arising out of SC/ST Police Station Case No. 15 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 126(2),115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. The case is presently pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST(POA), Act, Jamshedpur. 4. Although the grant of anticipatory bail is barred under section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 but learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a land dispute between two factions of the villagers. As per the allegation, this appellant intervened in the fight and tried to negotiate the matter as a result of which he was 2026:JHHC:11420 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1034 of 2025 insulted and abused by taking his caste name. Since, it is a land dispute, therefore, reference has been made to the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020(10) SCC 710 in support of the prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2- victim has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in public view the victim has been abused. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record and the allegation made, prima facie, it appears that the dispute is regarding possession of a piece of land. Considering the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only)with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Jamshedpur in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025 on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellants will submit self-attested photo copy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile number before the learned trial court which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the Court. 9. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 20.04.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026