2026:JHHC:14382 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.965 of 2025 ---- Sujit Yadav @ Sujit Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 years, Son of Dhaneshwar Yadav, R/o Kachaknal, Panchayat Satdiha, P.O. Sarmatand and P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bindu Devi, aged about 36 years, W/o Binod Das, R/o Pahadpur, Kokarcholi, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaturvedi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. ---- 08/Dated: 12th May, 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, 1989. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2026, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case is present before this Court. 4. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions-I, Koderma in A.B.P No.327 of 2025 in connection with Koderma SC/ST P.S.Case No.06 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 351(3), 352, 305, 3(5), 189(2), 190, 329(3), 329(4) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(a)/3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire allegation is against the co-accused namely, Govind Singh. There is no specific allegation against this applicant and he belongs to a different caste i.e., Yadav. The alleged incident is falsified as no injury has been caused to any person. The F.I.R has been lodged after three months of the alleged incident. Thus, it is nothing but a false and fabricated case, and as such, prayer for anticipatory bail is maintainable. 2026:JHHC:14382 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.965 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer. Thus, the prohibitory mandate of Sections 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act get attracted and as such, prayer for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the allegation made herein disclose a case under SC/ST (PoA) is made out. Section 18 of the SC/ST ( PoA) gets attracted and bars the grant of anticipatory bail. 8. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby, rejected. 9. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer is hereby, dispensed with. 10. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 12th May, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 14.05.2026