2026:JHHC:19152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.97 of 2026 ---- 1. Deepak Gope aged about 37 years, S/o Mahadev Gope @ Guddu Gope, Resident of Village – Khora Bhakuwa Toli, P.O.-Khora, P.S.-Gumla, District – Gumla (Jharkhand). 2. Binod Gope aged about 41 years, s/o Ramesh Gope, Resident of Village – Khora Bhakuwa Toli, P.O.-Khora, P.S.-Gumla, District – Gumla (Jharkhand). …. …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Durga Oraon, son of Late Birsa Oraon, R/o – Village Khora Bhakua Toli, P.O.-Khora, P.S.-Gumla, District – Gumla (Jharkhand). …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Amicus Curiae ---- 04/Dated: 30th June, 2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned Amicus Curiae for the victim. 3. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 in A.B.P. No.524 of 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S. Case No.03 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 318(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2) & 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The case is presently pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, Gumla. 2026:JHHC:19152 Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.97 of 2026 4. Although Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail, such embargo would not apply where no prima facie offence under the provisions of the Act is made out. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act is not made out as it was not in the public view. However, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties. It has further been submitted that it is the appellants who gave the money not the alleged victim. On the above basis, the prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned amicus curiae have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that in the investigation it has come that the money has been siphoned which was due to his mother and further he has been assaulted. Thus, the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act gets attracted. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records as well as the case diary, it appears that the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act has been committed. 8. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants, accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 30th June, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 02.07.2026