Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2471 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 164 of 2025 ---------- Ashish Kumar Gupta ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Shreehari Dorai Buru ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned A.C.to G.A.-III For Resp.No. 2 : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate ---------- 10/29.01.2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, namely Ashish Kumar Gupta, under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with S.C./S.T. Case No. 19 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 504/506/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(m)/3(1) (r )/3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (To be referred to hereinafter as S.C./S.T. Act), which is presently pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge-I, at Jamshedpur. 2. As per F.I.R., lodged on 08.10.2023 by the Informant, it is alleged that on 23.9.2023 a meeting of Gramsabha was convened for constituting Beneficiary Committee in Panchayat Bhawan and on that day the appellant, namely Ashish Kumar Gupta and one Manjri Banra (Mukhiya) forcibly asked the Informant to put his signature on plain white paper and for which the Informant refused. Thereafter, the appellant is alleged to have assaulted the Informant on the name of his caste, by making certain caste names, and he is alleged to have misbehaved with Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2471 ) 2 him. Although one Jugal Kumar Singh (Sardar) and Guddu Mukhi, who were also present in the Panchayat Bhawan, forbade the appellant from abusing the Informant, but the appellant also abused them and misbehaved with them. It is further alleged that later on, while the Informant was talking with one Mala Gupta at Jadugora Bazar then again appellant Ashish Kumar Gupta arrived there and asked him to put his signature on the paper of the Beneficiary Committee and to which the Informant denied and then the appellant abused him and thereafter, the appellant has been abusing him at the public places, Chowks, market places and crowded places in the Jadugora town and he also used to spits upon him and humiliate him. 3. Heard Mr. Zaid Imam, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A.- III and Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the Informant has lodged the F.I.R. after a delay of more than 15 days, because the occurrence took place on 23.09.2023, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.10.2023, i.e after a delay of 15 days and for which there is no explanation. It is submitted that the Police has not proceeded against said Manjri Banra and the Police has proceeded only against the present appellant. It is Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2471 ) 3 further submitted that the other witnesses, namely, Sripati Mahto, i.e. the Panchayat Secretary and Fagu Ram Mardi, whose statements have been recorded at Page 12 and Page 13 respectively of the Case Diary, have not supported the allegation against the appellant. It is submitted that even the Informant, during his subsequent statement recorded at Paragraph 6 of the Case Diary, has named one Rohit Singh Parmar, who was present at the place of occurrence, and said Rohit Singh Parmar has stated during his statement recorded at Para 27 of the Case Diary that he had no knowledge about the occurrence and no abuse or assault has taken place in his presence. Even the Informant, while being examined during his question answer part of subsequent statement, has failed to answer the questions, i.e. the Question No.1 and Question No.2, which were put forward by the Police as to why the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.10.2023 for the occurrence which took place on 23.09.2023 and he failed to give reason for the delay. It is submitted that the appellant has four criminal antecedents and in all the cases he has been acquitted. It is submitted that the appellant has also preferred W.P.(Cr.) before this Court for quashing of F.I.R. which is still pending. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the Informant as his wife has lost the election of Mukhiya and hence, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A.-III, has opposed the prayer for Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2471 ) 4 anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for abusing the Informant in public view on the date of meeting in the Panchayat Bhawan and also on subsequent dates at various places. It is submitted that the Informant, during his subsequent statement recorded at Paragraph 6 of the Case Diary, has fully supported the prosecution case and several witnesses, namely Jugal Kumar Singh, Guddi Mukhi, Mala Gupta and Lakshmi Devi, whose statement has been recorded at Paragraph 8,9,10, and 11 respectively of the Case Diary, have fully supported the allegation against the appellant and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the argument of the learned A.C. to G.A.-III, has further submitted that the appellant had abused and threatened the Informant in the name of his caste and has wrongly stated that the Informant had not produced any caste certificate before the Police. It is submitted that Para 32 of the Case Diary reveals that the Informant has submitted caste certificate before the Police. It is further submitted that the appellant is even threatening witnesses Rohit Kumar, Arvind Gupta and Tikki Mukhi, whose statements have been recorded in Page No. 52, 55 and 56 respectively of the Case Diary. It is further submitted that the appellant has got four criminal antecedents and though he has got acquitted in all four cases, but he is a man of disputed character. It is submitted that even the Press Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2471 ) 5 Club of Jamshedpur has written to the Chairman that the appellant is involved in illegal business in the name of being Newspaper correspondence and as a matter of fact, the appellant is not a journalist. It is submitted that even the District Administration has published in Dainik Bhaskar-a Local daily Newspaper, Jamshedpur on 14.10.2023, by identifying the persons preparing illicit liquor and the name of the appellant is shown as spurious liquor maker in the district of Jamshedpur and hence, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the record of this case, the Case Diary and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It also appears that the Informant, during his subsequent statement recorded at Paragraph No.6 of the Case Diary and the witnesses, namely Jugal Kumar Singh, Guddi Mukhi, Mala Gupta and Lakshmi Devi, whose statements have been recorded at Paragraph No.s 8, 9, 10 and 11 respectively of the Case Diary, have fully supported the prosecution case. 9. It appears that even the witnesses, namely Rohit Parmar, Arvind Gupta and Tikki Mukhi, whose statements have been recorded at Page 52, 55 and 56 respectively of the Case Diary, have stated that the appellant is threatening them for taking the side of the Informant, which shows that the appellant is an emboldened person and he has been threatening the witnesses even. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:2471 ) 6 10. It appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant to have abused the Informant in public view, which has been supported by several witnesses named above. 11. The conduct of the appellant does not entitle him to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected. 12. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 164 of 2025 is dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 29.01.2026