2026:JHHC:22573 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2026 1.Kaleshwar Mahto, aged about 43 years, son of Maniram Mahto 2.Ram Lakhan Mahto, aged about 41 years, son of Maniram Mahto 3.Ramesh Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Dhaneshwar Mahto All are residents of village Gagi, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1. State of Jharkhand 2.Devanti Kumari, daughter of Bira Orain, resident of Kali Kurmi Tola, P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, Dist. Latehar, presently residing at C/o Shatrughan Prajapati, Arsande, Near Kanke Block, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. 08/30.07.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, although Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State as well as learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent no.2- victim, as the victim has not appeared inspite of valid service of notice. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- II, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 2896 of 2025 in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 74 of 2023, registered for the offence under Section 323, 341, 324,504 & 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. The case is presently pending before the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the present case has been lodged on the basis of a complaint case and on perusal of the complaint case it appears that there is a land dispute between the parties. The land has been purchased by the alleged 2026:JHHC:22573 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2026 victim and there is a dispute regarding co-sharer of the seller of the land. Thus, it is purely a land dispute which has been wrongly aggravated under the SC/ST Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel the State and learned amicus curiae appearing for the victim have opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Considering the fact that it is a land dispute which has been wrongly aggravated into a case under the SC/ST Act, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 7. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 74 of 2023 on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellants will submit self-attested photo copy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile number before the learned trial court which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the Court. 8. In the result, the present appeal is allowed and accordingly disposed of. 9. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-victim. Let admissible remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae be paid by the JHALSA. 10. Let this order be communicated to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA for needful. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 30.07.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026