2026:JHHC:3315 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 835 of 2025 …. Sonu Rai @ Sunil Roy, aged about 38 years, son of Sri Brijnandan Rai, Resident of Village Jorar, United Bank Gali Bank Gali, Jorar, P.O. and P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi. ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Neli Mariyam Kujur, wife of Sonu Munda, resident of Jorar Basti, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi. ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P. P. …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT 05/05.02.2026 Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The Present Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Namkum P. S. Case No. 110 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351 (2) and (3) of the Bharatiya 2026:JHHC:3315 2 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act which is pending in the Court of Sri Yashwant Prakash, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi. 3. As per FIR, the appellant and other co-accused persons are alleged to have entered into the house of the informant and alleged to have abused him and threatened him of dire consequences. On the next day, the appellant alonwith 150 unknown persons came to the house of the Informant and attacked with sword, Lathi-Danda, brick-bats etc. to the Informant’s husband and her family members and the injured person were brought to ESIC Hospital, Namkum and thereafter referred to RIMS Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is specific allegation against Raj Kumar Yadav who had opened fire from his illegal fire arms. It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant and hence, the appellant may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the injured witness Sintu Munda who was conscious had taken the name of 2026:JHHC:3315 3 the appellant to be present at the time of occurrence in which, later on Sintu Munda had died. It is submitted that the regular bail of co-accused namely, Dipu Kumar @ Deepu Kumar has also been rejected vide order dated 18.12.2025 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 858 of 2025 passed by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR and he and other co-accused were demanding Chanda (ransom) from the husband of the informant on 14.03.2025 and had threatened him and his family members. Thereafter the appellant-Sonu Rai @ Sunil Roy and other accused persons, as named in the FIR, had arrived at the village in their residence and started assaulting him and one of the accused Raj Kumar had fired due to which one Sintu Munda had died at Hospital and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.IR and the case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that the appellant is named in the FIR for having also arrived in a mob at the residence of the informant on 15.03.2025 and alleged to have assaulted and the informant and her husband and due to firing made by one Raj Kumar Yadav 2026:JHHC:3315 4 upon the common people of the village, 10 persons are said to have sustained grievous injury and one person Sintu Munda had died. 9. It appears that the witnesses namely Ajay Munda, Gyan Munda and Smt. Rina Sanga at paragraph-6, 7 and 12 have supported the allegation of the informant. 10. Thus, considering the fact and the circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant- Sonu Rai @ Sunil Roy on anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant- Sonu Rai @ Sunil Roy, is rejected. 12. Thus, this Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.835 of 2025, is hereby, dismissed and the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by Sri Yashwant Prakash, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- II-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi in A. B. P. No. 1914 of 2025 arising out of Namkum P. S. Case No. 110 of 2025 is upheld. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 05.02.2026 RKM/