2026:JHHC:11418 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.773 of 2025 ---- 1. Bir Bahadur Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Late Maharaj Singh, resident of Village Simaliya, Nawatoli, P.O & P.S. Ratu District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Nand Kishore Singh, aged about 71 years, son of Maharaj Singh, Resident of village-Chanwath, P.O. Chanwath, P.S. & District Buxar, (Bihar) 3. Usha Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Krishna Singh, Resident of Village:-Simaliya, Nawatoli, P.O & P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ram Bahadur Ram, Son of Late Yogendra Ram, resident of Vaccine Institute Colony, Namkum, P.O & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. D.K Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv. ---- 07/Dated: 20th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in A.B.P No.1406 of 2025, arising out of S.C/S.T P.S. Case No.18 of 2016 along with SC/ST Case No.181 of 2017, for the offence under Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(q)(r)(s)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (For short the SC/ST Act). The case is pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land in question which is the subject matter of the present dispute is hit by Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenant Act, 1908. It is nothing but land dispute between the 2026:JHHC:9553 Page No.2 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.773 of 2025 parties. Further, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, it has been submitted that in such type of case, the anticipatory bail is maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the above facts, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants, named above, are directed to surrender in the trial court within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.18 of 2016 along with SC/ST Case No.181 of 2017, on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of his/her/their Aadhaar Card(s) and also submit his/her/their mobile number(s) before the learned trial court which he/she/they will always keep active and will not change it without prior permission of the court, till conclusion of the case. 7. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 20th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded