( 2026:JHHC:8789 ) 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026 ------ 1. Kameshwar Saw aged about 47 years, 2. Jiblal Saw aged about 37 years, both sons of Peru Saw, Both residents of Village-Mathadih, P.O.-Parwatpur, P.S.- Ahilyapur, District-Giridih. … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. XXX d/o XXX Resident of village-XXX, P.O.-XXX, P.S.-XXX, District-XXX. … Respondents ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.2367 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has rejected the prayer for regular bail of the appellants on the ground that there is direct and specific allegation of assault against ( 2026:JHHC:8789 ) 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026 them and also the allegation of hurling abuse by calling the informants by their caste name. 3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons abused the informant, who is member of scheduled castes, by her caste name and when the same was protested by the informant, they outraged her modesty by tearing out her clothes and the appellant no.2 assaulted the informant while the appellant no.1 assaulted her father namely Hira Lal. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and the cognizance of the offences has also been taken. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned court below has failed to consider that the occurrence took place during the quarrel, in respect of which the appellant no.1 lodged an FIR basing upon which Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 109, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 352, 351(2) & 3, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and in that case also, charge sheet has also been submitted by the police against the accused persons of that case. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has also failed to consider that the alleged injuries sustained by the victims upon the assault made by the appellants are simple in ( 2026:JHHC:8789 ) 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026 nature. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has also failed to consider that the appellants have been in custody since 17.11.2025 and they have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih failed to consider that the co-accused persons, who assaulted the informant- who sustained grievous injury, have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide the judgement dated 14.11.2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.547 of 2025, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the appellants in this appeal, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellants and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the appellants, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has rightly rejected their prayer to be released on bail. It is also submitted that the victim Belly Devi has in her statement under Section 180 of BNS, 2023 also stated that she was also assaulted by the appellants, though in the FIR it has specifically mentioned that she was assaulted by the co-accused, who have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Appeal (SJ), being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned special Judge failed to appreciate that, it is apparent that for the same occurrence two FIRs ( 2026:JHHC:8789 ) 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026 have been lodged. One by the appellant no.1 and thereafter the other by the informant of this case. The learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih failed to consider that there was assault and counter assault from both the sides and the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih failed to consider that in this case, charge sheet has also been submitted and cognizance of the offences has also been taken and the co-accused persons against whom, there was an allegation of causing grievous injury to the victim Belly Devi haves already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has committed a grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellants and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellants be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the order dated 08.12.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.2367 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025, is quashed and set aside. 10. The appellants, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 with the condition that they will co-operate ( 2026:JHHC:8789 ) 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026 with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant and her family members and witnesses of the case during the pendency of the trial. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ), is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 26th of March, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on- 01/04/2026