2026:JHHC:19957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.241 of 2026 ---- Jahir Ansari, aged about 58 years, son of Ali Miyan, Resident of Kalajhar, P.O. Kalajhar, P.S. Kathikund, District Dumka …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shanti Hembram, D/o Late Kanhu Hembrom, R/o Village Kalajhar, Kathikund, District Dumka, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prem Mardi, Adv. ---- 03/Dated: 07th July, 2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. It is well settled that although Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail, such bar would not apply in case where no prima facie offence under the Act is made out. 4. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC & ST), Dumka in A.B.P No.28 of 2026 in connection with Kathikund P.S. Case No.50 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 127(2), 117(4), 109, 79, 351(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case is presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC & ST), Dumka. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant there is a general and omnibus allegation which does not constitute the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act. It has further been submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties. On the above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 2026:JHHC:19957 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.241 of 2026 6. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has stated she has been assaulted being a member of weaker section of the society. Further, the assault has been made in an organized manner and to protect from such action provision under the SC/ST (PoA) Act has been made. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act is made out, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant is hereby, rejected. 8. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands rejected. 9. Let the affidavit filed by the State be kept on record with regard to the service of notice. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 07th July, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 09.06.2026