2026:JHHC:9559 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 110 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 110 of 2026 Nandlal Mandal @ Nandlal Sundi aged about 62 years, S/o: Late Punit Sundi @ Punit Mandal R/o : Qt. No. 76/AB 2, Shanti Nagar, Railway Hospital, Railway Steam Colony, Patratu, P.O.: Patratu, PS: Patratu, Dist: Ramgarh, State: Jharkhand 829119, Permanent address at R/o village – Aurwatand, PO & PS- Sariya, Dist.- Giridih …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. The State of Jharkhand ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Suman Kr. Sinha, Advocate 04/06.04.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim. 3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (POA), Giridih in A.B.P. No. 1755 of 2025 arising out of Sariya P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025 for the offence under Section 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 76, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. The case is presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST(POA), Giridih. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a land dispute between the parties and this land has been purchased by the appellant and the area belongs to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe people. Since, the appellant has no such caste consideration and as such, he has decided to settle in that area surrounded by members of scheduled cate/scheduled tribe community. 5. Based on aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case under the SC/ST Act is made out 2026:JHHC:9559 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 110 of 2026 and at best it is a property dispute between the parties, which has wrongly been aggravated to make out a case under SC/ST Act. 6. Learned counsel for the informant and State have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been submitted that the informant has been abused and assaulted by stone, which has caused some injury. 7. From the nature of dispute between the parties, it appears that it is simplicitor property dispute between the parties and as such, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is 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 his arrest or surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only)with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST(POA), Giridih in connection with Sariya P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025 on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellant will submit self-attested photo copy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the Court. 9. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 06.04.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026