2026:JHHC:21824 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.291 of 2026 ---- 1. Ram Mahato @ Baburam Mahato, aged about 46 years, Son of Late Prasad Mahato 2. Sushil Mahato, aged about 21 years, Son of Baburam Mahato, Both residents of Village Chadri, P.O. & P.S. Rajnagar, District Seraikella Kharsawan …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sudarshan Gunduwa, Son of Late Lewa Gunduwa, resident of Village Chadri, P.O. & P.S. Rajnagar, District Seraikella Kharsawan …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P ---- 03/Dated: 23rd 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. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2/victim in the present case. 3. However, Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.276 of 2026 has been heard today, in which, the victim who is also respondent therein has appeared and participated in that case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 5. 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. 6. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella Kharsawan in A.B.P. No.46 of 2026 in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.68 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 324(2), 352 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants have 2026:JHHC:21824 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.291 of 2026 been rejected. The case is presently pending in the Court of learned A.D.J.-I- Seraikella. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged occurrence has taken place within a closed premises and it is not in a public view and as such, no offence under SC/ST Act is made out. Further, no reason for the assault has been shown, rather it is purely a neighbourhood dispute between the parties which has wrongly been aggravated. On the above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applellant. 9. Considering the fact that no grievous injury has been caused and the alleged occurrence took place in close premises, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants, named above, are 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 their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J-I-Seraikella in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.68 of 2025, on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellant(s) will submit self- attested photocopy of his/her/their Aadhaar Card(s) and also submit his/her/their mobile number(s) before the learned trial court which he/she/they will always keep active and will not change it without prior permission of the court, till the conclusion of the case. 10. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 23rd July, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded