2026:JHHC:20025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.246 of 2026 ---- 1. Dayal Mahto, aged about 45 years, Son of Damar Mahto 2. Anita Devi, aged about 40 years, W/o Prakash Mahto 3. Pintu Prasad @ Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/o Prakash Mahto 4. Vikash Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Prakash Mahto 5. Kauleshwar Kumar, aged about 40 years, S/o Durika Mahto 6. Raju Prasad @ Raju Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o Dayal Mahto , All the above appellants are the Residents of Vill-Jhapro, P.O. & P.S. Tatijhariya 825313, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. XXX …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Achyut Swaroop Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Adv. ---- 03/Dated: 07th July, 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 the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim. 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 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in A.B.P No.2145 of 2025 in connection with Tatijhariya P.S. Case No.75 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 303(2), 74 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case is presently pending in the Court of learned ADJ-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a specific allegation against the present appellants. There is also a land dispute between the parties. However, compromise has been arrived between the parties. On the above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 2026:JHHC:20025 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.246 of 2026 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that compromise has been arrived in the matter. The offence under question is not compoundable. Even the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act is not available. Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act also gets attracted where the anticipatory bail is barred. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that there is a specific allegation of serious assault which has resulted into injury and there is also allegation of urination on the face. These are the serious offences committed by a group and as such, merely a compromise by the weaker section of the society cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. So far as the appellant No.2 namely, Anita Devi is concerned, she is a home maker and as such, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant No.2. Accordingly, the appellant No.2, named above, is directed to surrender in the trial court within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, and in the event of her arrest or surrender, she shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ADJ-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh in connection with Tatijhariya P.S. Case No.75 of 2024, on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellant No.2 will submit self-attested photocopy of her Aadhaar Card and also submit her mobile number before the learned trial court which she will always keep active and will not change it without prior permission of the court, till conclusion of the case. 9. As far as the appellant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 namely, Dayal Mahto, Pintu Prasad @ Kumar, Vikash Kumar, Kauleshwar Kumar and Raju Kumar @ Raju Prasad are concerned, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to them. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is hereby, rejected. 10. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 07th July, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 09.07.2026