2026:JHHC:2961 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 401 of 2025 …. 1. Jay Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Late Maheshwar Singh 2. Uday Singh, aged about 39 years, son of Late Maheshwar Singh 3. Praveen Sahu, aged about 34 years, son of Rajkeswar Sahu All resident of Village- Chitri Mahuwa Toli, PO- Daru, PS and Disrict- Lohardaga …… Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Relative of victim ..… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate Ms. Pratima Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A. P. P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Ms. Kistmat Minz, Advocate ….. ORAL ORDER IN COURT …… 06/09.01.2026 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 401 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, apprehending their arrest in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 341/323/324/354/452/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i)(r) and 3 (i) (s) of the SC/ST Act by which the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants has been rejected vide order dated 27.03.2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga and which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga. 2. As per the FIR, arising out of Complaint Case No. 21 of 2026:JHHC:2961 2 2023, it has been alleged that all the appellants had entered into the house of the complainant -Informant on 31.10.2023 at 9.00 P.M. in night forcibly and assaulted the complainant and when her son Amar Oraon came to save her then, the appellant no. 3, Praveen Sahu also assaulted her son and abused her in the name of her caste. It is also alleged that reason of occurrence is that Amar Oraon, son of the Complainant, has performed love marriage with one Manju Kumar, who belongs to Sahu Community. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in case. It is submitted that the allegation of assaulting and abusing the Complainant and her son in the name of her caste are false and concocted. It is submitted that the occurrence took place on 31.10.2023 at 9.00 PM in night, but the Complaint Case was filed on 10.11.2023 i.e. after delay of ten (10) days. It is submitted that occurrence has allegedly taken place inside the house of the Complainant and not in public view. It is submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and which has been settled later on as it is evident from the order passed by the learned Court below by which the prayer for the Anticipatory Bail of the Appellnats was rejected. It is submitted that the statement of witnesses namely Sarita Devi, Amar Oraon, Budheshwar Oraon and Somari Devi recorded at Para-10, again 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary, are not reliable as they are interested witnesses and hence, the appellants may be enlarged on Anticipatory Bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for Anticipatory Bail and has submitted that 2026:JHHC:2961 3 all the appellants are named in the FIR and had assaulted the complainant and her son and abused them in the name of their caste. It is submitted that several witnesses namely Sarita Devi, Amar Oraon, Budheshwar Oraon and Somari Devi, whose statements are recorded at Para-9, 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary, have supported the allegation against the appellants. It is submitted that at para-62 of the case diary is the injury report of the injured-Vinjay Oraon and hence, the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Complainant, after adopting the submissions of the learned counsel for the State, has submitted that the appellants were aggrieved with the fact that son of the Informant- Amar Oraon has married with one Manju Kumari, who belongs to Sahu Community. It is submitted that the witnesses namely Sarita Devi i.e. Informant, Amar Oraon i.e the son of the Informant, Budheshwar Oraon and Somari Devi, whose statements have been recorded at Para-10, again 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary, have fully supported the allegation against them and hence, the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants may be rejected. 7. Perused the records of this case, case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that the Complaint Case No. 21 of 2023 has been filed on 10.11.2023, though the occurrence had taken place on 31.10.2023 i.e. after the delay of ten (10) days and for which, there is no explanation. 9. It further reveals that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the Informant on 31.10.2023 at 09.00 PM in the night and thus, there is no public view. 10. It also appears that the son of the Informant, Amar 2026:JHHC:2961 4 Oraon at repeated para-10 of the case diary has tried to support the allegation of the complainant, but he admitted that the occurrence has taken place inside the house. It appears that witness -Budheshwar Oraon, whose statement is recorded at para-11 of the case diary, resides at 300 Yard from the house of the Informant, whereas the witness- Somari Devi resides at the distance of one (1) Kilometre, though she alleged that she remained in the house of the Informant on the date of occurrence and that the appellants have assaulted the Informant, but she has not given the name of any specific appellants. 11. It appears that the police has further examined independent witnesses namely Suraj Sahy, Israfil Ansari, whose statement have been recorded at para-44 and 45 of the case diary, who stated that the allegations against the appellants to outrage the modesty of the Informant is not correct and both the sides are litigating over a piece of land and the allegation of abuse in the name of the caste of the Informant is also not correct. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant no. 1, Jay Singh, the appellant no. 2, Uday Singh and the appellant no. 3, Praveen Sahu are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga / or his Successor Court in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025. 13. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 401 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by 2026:JHHC:2961 5 Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga in A.B.P. No. 71 of 2025 in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025 is, hereby, set aside. 14. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 401 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 09.01.2026 Kamlesh/