2026:JHHC:21822 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.276 of 2026 ---- 1. Niranjan Mahato, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Gurwa Mahato 2. Bishnu Mahato, aged about 22 years, Son of Sri Pati Mahato Both residents of Village Chadri, P.O. & P.S. Rajnagar, District Seraikella Kharsawan …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sundarshan Gunduwa, Son of Latge Lewa Gunduwa, resident of Village Chandri, 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. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P For the Victim : Mr. Prem Mardi, Adv ---- 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. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim. 3. 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 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 been rejected. The case is presently pending in the Court of learned A.D.J-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged occurrence took place within a closed premise and it is not in a public view and as such, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. Further, no 2026:JHHC:21822 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.276 of 2026 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. 6. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and have submitted that the victim has been assaulted and abused. 7. Considering the fact that no grievous injury has been caused and the alleged occurrence took place in close premise, 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-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, 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 conclusion of the case. 8. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 23rd July, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded