2026:JHHC:3314 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1054 of 2025 …. Govind Singh aged about 21 years, son of Arjun Singh, resident of Village- Nawada, P.o.- Sarmatand, P.S.-Jainagar, District- Koderma. ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bindu Devi, wife of Binod Das, resident of Village- Ward No.3, Bahadurpur, Kakarcholi, P.O. & P.S.- Jainagar, District- Koderma. ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P. P. For the Resp. No.2 : Ms. Ishika Tigga, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kr. Chouhan, Advocate …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT 03/28.01.2026 Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State and Ms. Ishika Tigga, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The Present Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Koderma (SC/ST) P. S. Case No. 06 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 305, 3(5), 189(2), 190, 329(3), 329(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(a)(r)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act Koderma. 3. As per FIR, the appellant alongwith Sujit Yadav is alleged 2026:JHHC:3314 2 to have threatened the son of the Informant who stated ‘Jai Bhim’. Thereafter, the appellant was infuriated and he came in the mob and got the Informant outside his house and forced the son of the Informant to lick the spit on the back portion of his sandal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. 5. It is submitted that the occurrence took place on 30.01.2024 but the FIR was lodged after delay of three (03) months. It is submitted that there is allegation of taking her Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) cash by one of the co-accused, however, the FIR was lodged after delay of three (03) months. 6. It is submitted that one of the co-accused Sujit Yadav @ Sujit Kumar Yadav has been granted interim protection by this Court in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 965 of 2025 on 03.12.2025. It is submitted that the allegation against the appellant is entirely ornamental in nature and the Informant has misused the provisions of SC/ST Act only to implicate the appellant. The appellant has no criminal antecedent and he is a student and hence the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for forbidding the son of the Informant of raising the slogan ‘Jai Bhim’. It is submitted that the appellant had forced the son of the Informant to lick the spit on the back portion of his sandal. It is submitted that witnesses namely, Bindu Devi- the Informant, Chandan Kumar- victim boy, Savita Devi and Fulwa Devi at Paragraph-4, 5, 6 and 7 had supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for 2026:JHHC:3314 3 anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the Informant has also adopted the argument of the learned APP and has submitted that the appellant is the main accused and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and from going through the case diary, it appears that though the appellant is a student of 19 years but he is alleged to have restrained the son of the Informant for not chanting ‘Jai Bhim’. It also appears that the appellant alongwith the co-accused has arrived at the resident of the Informant and certain subsequent act also took place. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on Anticipatory Bail and hence, the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellant is, hereby, rejected. 11. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1054 of 2025 is dismissed 12. Thus, the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by Sri Ghulam Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge (SC/ST Act), Koderma in A. B. P. No. 327 of 2025 arising out of Koderma (SC/ST) P. S. Case No. 06 of 2025 is upheld. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 28.01.2026 RKM/