Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 334 of 2024 ---------- 1.Shankar Mahto, aged about 62 years, son of Bhondwa Mahto 2.Jiwan Devi, aged about 58 years, wife of Shankar Mahto 3.Ranthu Mahto @ Rathu Mahto, aged about 63 years, son of Late Chamra Mahto 4.Parmila Devi, aged about 58 years, wife of Ranthu Mahto 5.Asha Devi, aged about 26 years, wife of Arun Mahto 6.Anand Mahto, aged about 38 years, son of Shankar Mahto All resident of village Kathachancho, Post Mandar, Police Station Mandar, District Ranchi; 7.Rajendra Gope @ Rajendra Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of Late Sarju Mahto, resident of village Mandar, Post Mandar, Police Station Mandar, District Ranchi ..… Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Mary Lakra, widow of Late Arun Ekka, resident of village Kathachancho, Post Mandar, Police Station Mandar, District Ranchi ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Samavesh Bhanjdeo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. For Resp.No. 2 : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Shreya Anugrah Balmuchu, Adv. ---------- C.A.V. Order Pronounced on 06.05.2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants, namely Shankar Mahto, Jiwan Devi, Ranthu Mahto @ Rathu Mahto, Parmila Devi, Asha Devi, Anand Mahto and Rajendra Gope @ Rajendra Mahto, under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act, 2016, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mandar P.S. Case no. 01 of 2021, instituted for the offences under Sections 341/323/427/504/506/34 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (r) (w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 2 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (To be referred to hereinafter as S.C./S.T. Act), which is presently pending in the Court of learned A.J.C. VII-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ranchi. 2. As per F.I.R., appellant Shankar Mahto and his relatives came on 04.01.2021, at about 12.00 P.M. and started abusing the Informant in filthy language by taking the name of her caste and demolished her boundary wall and hence, she was feeling insecure and needed protection and demanded action against the accused person named Shankar Mahto (Appellant No.1), Jiwan Devi (Appellant No.2), Ranthu Mahto (Appellant No.3), Parmila Devi (Appellant No.4), Asha Devi (Appellant No. 5), Anand Mahto (Appellant No.6) and Rajendra Gope (Appellant No. 7). 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Informant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. It is submitted that the disputed land in question pertaining to R.S. Khata No. 28, Plot No.s 73, 648, 665, 963 measuring an area of 3.57 acres of land at Mauza Kathchancho, P.S. Mandar within Revenue Thana No. 89 of District Ranchi was recorded in the Draft Records of Right in the name of Jharia Ahir and Kunwa Ahir, both sons of Gopla Ahir as Khatyani, which was finally published around the year 1935. However, Raiyat Kunwa Ahir died issueless and the other recorded tenant namely Jharia Ahir due to need of money sold the land of R.S. Khata No.28, Plot No.s 73, 648, 665, 963 measuring an area of 3.57 acres of Khata Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 3 No. 28 and R.S. Plot No. 210 and 211 measuring an area of 7 decimal land of Khata No.54 to Baiju Ahir, son of Mangra Ahir by virtue of registered Sale Deed on 21.12.1965 which was entered in Book No.1, Volume No. 22, Page No. 213 to 215 being Sale Deed No. 8286. It is submitted that after purchasing the aforesaid land, Baiju Ahir, son of Mangra Ahir applied for mutation of land and after due enquiry it was mutated in their name and was granted rent receipts year by year. Thereafter the said vendee-Baiju Ahir, son of Mangra Ahir, sold the land measuring an area of 1.78 acres of land and Plot No.s 210 and 211 measuring an area of 3.50 decimal land of Khata No. 54(Belgan), total measuring an area of 1.82 acre land of Mauza Kathchancho to Late Chamra Mahto @ Ahir, Sukhram Ahir, Bhulwa Ahir, Bhondwa Mahto @ Ahir, Sahua Ahir and Sanichara Ahir, i.e. the ancestors of the present appellants by registered Sale Deed dated 13.02.1973 which was entered in Book No.1, Volume No. 83, Page Nos 226 to 228. After purchasing the aforesaid land, the ancestors of the present Appellant No.3, namely Ranthu Mahto, and others filed a Mutation case and after due enquiry it was mutated in their name and were granted rent receipts year by year. However, in course of time the vendee namely Chamra Ahir died leaving behind three sons namely Mahadeo Mahto, Shiv Sagar Mahto and Ranthu Mahto(Appellant No.3). It is submitted that the Appellant No. 4, Pramila Devi is the wife of Ranthu Mahto (Appellant No.3). 5. It is further submitted that Bhandua Ahir @ Bholua Ahir, vendee No.3 died leaving behind two sons namely Shankar Mahto (Appellant No.1) and Shibu Mahto and the Appellant No.2, namely Jiwan Devi happens to be Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 4 the wife of the Shankar Mahto (Appellant No.1) and the Appellant No.6, namely Anand Mahto, happens to be the son of the Appellant No.s 1 and 2. It is submitted that the Appellant No.7, namely Rajendra Mahto has no concern with the land in question nor does he come within the genealogical table of vendee or vendor rather he has been falsely implicated due to the ulterior motive of the Informant. It is submitted that the appellants had immediately responded to the Notice under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing reply on 29.01.2022 and 08.11.2023. 6. It is submitted that on the alleged date of occurrence, i.e. on 04.01.2021, the Appellant No.1-Shankar Mahto and others were present before the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi by filing a case under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Informant of the present case, which was registered as M.Case No.06 of 2021 and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi had called for a report from the concerned Police Station and subsequently a proceeding under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on 08.03.2021. It is submitted that the legal heirs of Baiju Ahir, namely Gowardhan Mahto and Madan Mahto filed an original suit, which was registered as Original Suit No. 158 of 2021 for declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the land in question and the present Informant and others have already filed their written statement in Original Suit No. 158 of 2021. It is submitted that the appellants are poor farmers and they have no criminal antecedent and hence, they may be granted Anticipatory Bail. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that Section 18 of the S.C./S.T Act completely bars grant of Anticipatory Bail and hence, this criminal appeal may be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the Informant has also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that the present criminal appeal is not maintainable and it may be dismissed as there is an expressed and clear-cut statutory bar of Section 18A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for granting anticipatory bail in such cases. 9. It is further submitted that the question of title raised by the appellants, in disputed land in question, pertaining to R.S. Khata No.28, Plot No.s 73, 648, 665, 963 at Mauza Kathchancho, P.S. Mandar within Revenue Thana No.89 of District Ranchi, is already decided vide judgment dated 18.04.2009, in Title Suit No. 85 of 2007, by Sri Parveen Kumar Sinha, then learned Sub-Judge-II, at Ranchi, by which the learned Court has held that the appellants have clearly failed to prove their title and possession and hence, they do not have any right over the aforesaid land. It is submitted that the said land was brought by Magadali Orain, who happens to be the mother- in-law of the Respondent No.2 and said Magadali Orain had purchased the total area of 77 decimals of Plot No. 963 in the year 1940, from the Khatiyani Raiyat Jitua Ahir and Jharia Ahir, through registered sale deed No. 2633 dated 06.06.1940 and came in possession over the said property. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 6 After the purchase of the said land the name of Magadali Orain was mutated in the Sherista of State of Bihar and she was paying rent thereon and where she had resided and after her death, the Respondent No.2 inherited the said property as the heir and successor of her mother-in-law and possessed the same. 10. Thereafter the Respondent No.2 had constructed the boundary wall and shops over the said land, which were destroyed by the appellants. The Respondent No.2 was also threatened and abused in the name of her caste. It is submitted that on the date of the alleged incident all the appellants had demolished the boundary wall and the shop of the informant after abusing her in the name of her caste, which goes on to show their aggressive and abusive behaviour towards the informant. Such demolition itself indicates that the appellants, if granted anticipatory bail, may abuse the widowed Respondent No.2 again, who has particularly no one to save her family and her dignity. It is further submitted that the investigation is still going on and appellants may tamper with the evidence or may hinder the process of investigation. 11. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code, in which Sections 341 and 323 are serious in nature. Further a bare reading of section 155(4) of Cr.P.C. and also in the case of State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 435, it has been clearly held that when a case is related to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the entire case will be deemed to be a cognizable case. Thus, whole Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 7 case is to be treated as cognizable and police has no option but to investigate the whole of the case and to submit a chargesheet in respect of all the offences in that case. Non- cognizable offences in that case cannot be omitted from being investigated. In support of her argument, learned counsel for the Informant has also placed reliance in the case of Kiran Versus Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1067, and hence, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 12. Perused the record of this case, the Case Diary and considered the submission of both the sides. 13. It appears from the F.I.R. that Appellant No.1, namely Shankar Mahto, along with his relatives arrived and abused her and demolished the boundary wall of her house and even her constructed shops were demolished on 04.01.2021 and she has prayed for taking action against all the appellants. 14. It appears from the case diary that no document or caste certificate has been produced by the Informant, however, Para No.8 of the Case Diary reveals that the boundary wall and shop were found damaged at the Place of occurrence by the first Investigating Officer. 15. It appears that witnesses, namely Mary Sibiria Ekka (i.e. the mother-in-law), Nitin Pascal Ekka (i.e. the son of the Informant) and Basanti Devi (i.e. tenant of the Informant), whose statements have been recorded at Para 9, 10 and 11 respectively of the Case Diary, have supported the allegation against the accused persons, however, no independent witness, except Basanti Devi, i.e. the tenant was examined by the Investigating Officer. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 8 16. It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged on 04.01.2021 and more than Seven Investigating Officers have conducted investigation, but the chargesheet has not been submitted yet. 17. It appears that the matter was taken up on 21.10.2024 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi) of this Court and interim order was granted, which was continued on 05.12.2024,13.02.2025. 28.03.2025, 17.04.2025, 12.06.2025, 11.08.2025, 08.09.2025, 13.10.2025, 24.11.2025, 15.12.2025 and 22.01.2026. 18. It further reveals that earlier T.S. No. 85 of 2007 was filed and in which Appellant No.1, namely Shankar Mahto was Plaintiff No.3 in the said T.S. No. 85 of 2007 and he has deposed as P.W.6, which is also evident from the judgment dated 18.04.2009, passed in T.S. No. 85 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Ranchi. The said T.S. No.85 of 2007 was filed by Nine (09) persons as it reveals from Page 2 of the judgment, namely Chamra Ahir, Shukhram Ahir, Sanicharwa Ahir, Shankar Mahto, Siba Mahto, Kisun Mahto and Bisun Mahto, Phuleshwar Mahto and Sukesh Mahto and the Appellant No.1, namely Shankar Mahto was the Plaintiff No.3. The learned Sub-Judge has held that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their title by observing that Baiju Ahir has no right to sell the 77 Decimal of disputed land to the Ancestor of the Appellant No. 3 and Appellant No.6 as their father Jharia Ahir and Jhagru Ahir had sold the suit property in the year 1940. 19. It appears that Shankar Mahto, i.e. Appellant No.1 and Chamra Mahto, who is ancestor of Rathu Mahto, i.e. Appellant No.3) have lost Title Suit No. 85 of 2007, which Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 9 was dismissed on 18.04.2009 by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Ranchi with regard to 77 decimal of land in question, which has been referred to in the F.I.R. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants have failed to controvert the statement of the Informant-Respondent No.2 as Respondent No. 2 has claimed 77 Decimal of land by virtue of sale deed of the year 1940 through Jharia Ahir and Jhagru Ahir. 21. It has been held in Kiran Versus Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1067, at Para 5.7, 6 and 6.2 as follows:- “Para 5.7:- The aforesaid provision of Section 18 and the bar created thereunder has to be seen in the context of the object and purpose with which the Parliament enacted the SC/ST Act, 1989. This legislation was brought into force with an avowed object of implementing the measures to improve the socio- economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who have remained a vulnerable class in the society. The underlying idea is to ensure that the persons belonging to these classes are not denied their civil rights, are not subjected to indignities and are insulted from humiliation and harassment. Para 6:- In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarized that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C., it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 10 Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off. Para 6.2:- Non-making of prima vacie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.” 22. It is well settled from the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court passed in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 that provisions of S.C./S.T. Act are not attracted in a case of land dispute between the parties. 23. It appears that some of the appellants are ladies, i.e. Appellant No.2, namely Jiwan Devi, who is the wife of Appellant No.1-Shankar Mahto, Appellant No.4, namely Parmila Devi, who is the wife of Appellant No.3 and Appellant No.5, namely Asha Devi, whereas Appellant No.6, namely Anand Mahto is the son of Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No.2 and no specific overt act has been attributed against them. 24. Under the circumstances, so far as the conduct of Appellant No.1, 3 and 7, namely Shankar Mahto, Ranthu Mahto @ Rathu Mahto and Rajendra Mahto respectively are concerned, they are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as they are alleged to have demolished the boundary wall of the Informant, accordingly Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:15520 ) 11 the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants, i.e. Appellant No. 1, 3 and 7 is rejected. 25. Considering the fact mentioned above, Appellant No.s 2, 4, 5 and 6 namely Jiwan Devi, Parmila Devi, Asha Devi and Anand Mahto respectively 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 Appellant No.s 2, 4, 5 and 6, namely Jiwan Devi, Parmila Devi, Asha Devi and Anand Mahto respectively shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Mandar P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021, to the satisfaction of the Court of learned A.J.C. VII-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ranchi and also subject to the provisions of Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S. 26. Accordingly, Order dated 19.03.2024, passed in A.B.P. No. 365 of 2024, by the learned A.J.C.-II-cum- Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ranchi is set aside so far Appellant No.s 2, 4, 5 and 6 namely Jiwan Devi, Parmila Devi, Asha Devi and Anand Mahto respectively are concerned. 27. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 334 of 2024 is allowed in part. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 06.05.2026