2026:JHHC:21374 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 598 of 2025 ------ Manoj Bhagat, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Manohar Bhagat, R/o Village-Bhokta Toli, Simdega, P.O. and P.S.-Simdega, District-Simdega .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prakash Kerketta, S/o Late Iliyas Kerkatta resident of village Alsanga, P.O. Mahkurdera, P.S.-T. Tangar, District-Simdega .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. A.K. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP For the Victim : Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Adv. ------ Order No.12 / Dated : 20.07.2026. 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 the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim. 3. In pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2026, both the parties i.e., the appellant and the victim are present before this Court. This Court has interacted with the parties, but it appears that there is no chance of settlement between them. 4. 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. 5. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Vacation Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, SC/ST Simdega in A.B.P No.90 of 2025 in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.40 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. The case is presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge, SC/ST Act, Simdega. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out and it is a clear cut case of under 2026:JHHC:21374 Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Further, section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act has been shown which is non-existing and that also suggests non-application of mind on the part of the concerned Court. This is nothing, but a counter blast of Complaint Case No. 462 of 2024. The present case has been lodged after two and half year of the incident. The appellant has criminal antecedent, but he has already been bailed out. Further, it is a commercial transaction between the parties and as such, he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stating that the victim has been cheated in an organized manner by impersonation. A person belonging to weaker section of the society has been exploited and as such, the appellant does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it appears that the victim has been cheated in an organized manner by impersonation that too in a motor accident case. Considering the nature of allegations and the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby, rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 20.07.2026 Pawan/ Uploaded on .07.2026