2026:JHHC:9558 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 930 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 930 of 2025 1.Jilani Khan, aged about 38 years, S/o Kalimulla Khan, R/o-117, Sisi, P.O.- Kottam, P.S.- Gumla, District-Gumla, Jharkhand 2.Md. Tahjib Alam @ Tahjib Mirdaha, aged about 30 years, S/o Esamunddin Mirdaha, R/o Vill- Sisi, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, Districtr- Gumla, Jharkhand …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Baneser Oraon S/o Late Bandhan Oraon, R/o vill Tunjo, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla, Jharkhand ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate 04/06.04.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) 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 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No. 317 of 2025 arising out of Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2024 for the offence under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190,115(2),126,352,109,299 of the BNS & u/s 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(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, Gumla. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is simplicitor dispute and the entire allegation is false and fabricated. 5. Learned counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer for 2026:JHHC:9558 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 930 of 2025 anticipatory bail and submitted that in public view, by a group of persons, the victim has been humiliated and harassed. 6. In view of nature of allegation and considering the mandate of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 06.04.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026