2026:JHHC:2179 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.791 of 2024 …. 1. Baso Mahto @ Basudeo Yadav, Aged about 52 years, Son of Late Ritu Mahto @ Kamal Mahto, 2. Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav, Aged about 32 years, Son of Baso Mahto @ Basudeo Yadav, 3. Anil Yadav, Aged about 28 years, Son of Baso Mahto @ Basudeo Yadav, 4. Dhano Devi, Aged about 51 years, Wife of Baso Mahto @ Basudeo Yadav, 5. Fulwa Devi @ Fulan Devi, Aged about 31 Years, Wife of Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav, 6. Pinki Devi @ Pinki Kumari, Aged about 24 years, Wife of Anil Yadav. All are resident of Panchayat- Dhuraita, Village- Maheshraydih, P.O.-Dhuraita & P.S.-Hirodih, District- Giridih ……Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Meena Devi, W/o Nanku Turi, Aged about 41 years, R/o + Village- Maheshraydih, P.O.-Dhuraita and P.S.-Hirodih, District- Giridih ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No.09/14th January 2026 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with A.B.P. No.1510 of 2024 arising out of Giridih SC/ST Case No.14/2023 by which the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected for the offences under Sections 323, 386, 295(A), 427, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C and 3(1)(e)(k)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and which is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge 1st Cum Special Judge, 2026:JHHC:2179 2 SC/ST Giridih. 2. As per the F.I.R, the appellants had abused the Informant in the name of her caste while she had gone to Shiva Temple for performing Puja. It is also alleged that the appellant no.2 has demanded ransom of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) and as compulsion the Informant had handed over Rs.1000/- (Rs. one thousand) to him and other appellants are alleged to have assaulted Informant by legs and had scattered the Puja articles. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is an allegation of restraining the Informant for going to the Shiva Temple and for doing overt-act by demanding ransom Rs.50,000/- but when the Informant was examined by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C at paragraph 8 she has not supported the said allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R. rather she stated that she alongwith her husband had gone to the house of Dhano Devi wife of appellant no.1 Baso Mahto for demanding of eight (08) quintal rod which was taken by her some years ago and she has not supported the other allegations given in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the other witnesses namely Ilshi Devi examined at para-9 has also supported the said fact. It is submitted that the witnesses namely Tufani Singh and Malti Devi, whose statement have been recorded at para-39 and 40, have not supported the allegation of abusing the Informant in the name of her caste and for restraining her for going to Temple but they have stated that the Informant had handed over eight (08) quintal rod to Dhano Devi wife of appellant 2026:JHHC:2179 3 no.1 Baso Mahto for constructing the house and when the Informant alongwith her husband went to house of Dhano Devi, then the occurrence took place and the accused persons had abused the Informant. It is submitted that even the role of Superintendent of Police, Giridih was mentioned at para-53 of the case diary which he observed that the allegation of abusing the Informant in the name of her caste and restraining her from going to temple are not proved but they have found the allegation of some breach of trust. It is submitted that the appellants had also appeared before the Secretary D.L.S.A Giridih for compromise in the light of order dated 07.10.2025 passed by this Court but the Informant did not appear before the D.L.S.A Giridih, though the appellants were present. It is submitted that the appellants have agreed to return Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) to the Informant without being prejudiced to their case and hence they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellant. It is submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellants for assaulting and abusing the Informant in the name of her caste for also restraining her for going to Shiva Temple and performing puja there. It is submitted that witnesses namely Ilshi Devi and Malti Devi, whose statements are recorded at para-9 and 40 have supported the said allegations and hence the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, after adopting the submissions of learned A.P.P, has further submitted that all the appellants had abused the Informant in filthy language and restrained the Informant for going to Shiva Temple and she was 2026:JHHC:2179 4 subjected to mental and physical harassment. It is submitted that the police has also found that the Dhano Devi had taken eight (08) quintal rod from the Informant for constructing the house and they may be directed to return Rs.50,000/- in place of Rs.20,000/- and the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that there is allegation of assaulting and abusing the Informant in the name of her castes while she was going to temple. However, while the Informant was subsequently examined at Para-8 of the case diary and other witnesses namely Ilshi Devi at para-9 they have not supported the allegation of restraining her from going to temple and nor abusing her in the name of her caste specifically rather a new story has been developed that Informant had handed over eight (08) quintal rod to the Dhano Devi, who is wife of appellant No.1 Baso Mahto five years ago. 8. It also appears that there is no injury report. 9. It also appears that the independent witnesses Tufani Singh and Malti Devi, whose statement have been recorded at para-39 and 40, have also not supported the allegation of demanding ransom of Rs.50,000/-, though they stated for abusing and pushing the Informant but they had not abused her in the name of her caste. 10. It appears from para-53 of the case diary, the allegation of abusing the Informant in the name of her caste has not been found true. 11. Considering the above, it appears that the both the parties are known to each other and there may be some previous dispute. 12. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of this case 2026:JHHC:2179 5 and also considering both the sides, the appellants namely 1. Baso Mahto @ Basudeo Yadav, 2. Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav, 3. Anil Yadav, 4. Dhano Devi, 5. Fulwa Devi @ Fulan Devi, 6. Pinki Devi @ Pinki Kumari are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six (06) weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the appellants are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing of their bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge 1st Cum Special Judge, SC/ST Giridih or/his successor Court in connection with in connection with A.B.P. No.1510 of 2024 arising out of Giridih SC/ST Case No.14/2023 subject to the condition that the appellant no.1 namely Baso Mahto @ Basudev Yadav and no.4 Dhano Devi shall deposit Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand) before the learned Court below prejudice to their case and also subject to the condition of the provisions of Section 482(2) of BNSS 2023. 13. The said Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) will be handed over to the Informant if the matter is compromised otherwise it will depend upon the result of the said case. 14. The impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed in A.B. P. No.1510/2024 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge 1st Cum Special Judge, SC/ST Giridih is set aside. 15. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.791 of 2024 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 14.01.2026 Nishant/-