[2026:JHHC:8353] 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 204 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 204 of 2026 1. Sonu @ Pawan Prajapati, son of Lilawati Devi aged about 34 years, resident of Turi Mohalla Parnala Kumhar Toli Hazaribagh, P.O + P.S.-Sadar, District - Hazaribagh. 2. Monu Prajapati @Sumit Prajapati Son of Nand Lal Prajapati, aged about 30 years resident of Turu mohhalla- Parnala Kumhar Toli Hazaribagh, P.O+ P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh. 3. Vivek Prajapati @ Golu Prajapati son of Nandlal Prajapati aged about 31 years resident of Turu Mohhalla- Parnala Kumhar Toli, Hazaribagh, P.O+ P.S. Sadar, District - Hazaribagh. ...... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim ….. Respondents For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Virendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey Addl. PP For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv. Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in ABP No. 1811 of 2025 ( Hazaribag Sadar P.S. case no. 120 of 2025) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants in view of the prohibition in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The allegation against the appellants is that on 27.04.2025 at about 5.00 P.M., the appellants threw drain water in front of the door of [2026:JHHC:8353] 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 204 of 2026 the house of the informant. At about 9.00 P.M. on the same day, the appellant no. 1 passed a comment upon the informant, who was standing near gate of her house, that the informant is enjoying the fragrance, at which, the informant asked the appellant no. 1 whether the appellant no. 1 gets fragrance from dirty drain water and also told that the informant will throw the same in front of the door of the appellant no. 1 so that the appellant no. 1 would also enjoy the fragrance. It is further alleged that at which the appellants being armed with hockey sticks, axe, sticks chased the informant to beat and abused her by taking her caste name in filthy language and told that since dirt is not liked by the informant, she should be sent to heaven. On being chased, the informant ran towards her house after closing the gate. At which, the appellants broke the gate and caught hold of the informant. The appellant no. 3 disrobed the informant by removing her sari. The appellant made the informant fell down, at which, the co-accused Chandan Prajapati, tried to kill the informant with a farsa. Somehow, the informant could save her and then the informant tried to run away but the appellant no. 2 snatched away the gold chain from the neck of the informant. In the meanwhile, the family members of the informant and the neighbors came out to rescue the informant, at which, the appellants went away from the place of occurrence but criminally intimidated the informant and abused her by telling the informant to be a Chamar and that the Chamars have assembled. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, the police registered Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 120 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 76, 303 (2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS and under Section 3(1) (r) and Section 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and took up investigation of the case. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh considered that since the offences inter alia punishable under Section 3(1) (r) [2026:JHHC:8353] 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 204 of 2026 and Section 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants from the allegations made against them in the written report, hence, in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants are not entitled to privileges of anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the investigation of the case is going on. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case and the allegations made in the FIR are exaggerated. It is next submitted that the caste slur must be uttered in a place within public view, hence, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh ought to have allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the appellants and having not done so, he has committed grave illegality, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this appeal be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the appellant of intentionally insulting and intimidating the informant with an intent to humiliate being a member of Scheduled Castes in a place within public view and abused the informant who is a member of the Scheduled Castes by her caste name of ‘Chamar’ in a place within public view and the appellants are not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, therefore the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (r) and Section 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. Therefore, in view of the Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which bars application of Section 438 of CrPC which corresponds to Section 482 of BNSS, no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. [2026:JHHC:8353] 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 204 of 2026 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that besides there being serious allegation against the appellants of being members of an unlawful assembly, attempted to commit the murder of the informant, using force on the informant woman with intent to disrobe her; there is also allegation against the appellants of committing the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r) and Section 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 8. This Court after going through the materials in the record is satisfied that if the allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true, then, the offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (r) and Section 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in ABP No. 1811 of 2025 (Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. case no. 120 of 2025) in rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail to the appellants. 9. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 19th March, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 28.03.2026