2026:JHHC:5082 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 1050 of 2025 ------ Samim Akhtar, aged about 33 years, son of Mansoor Ansari, resident of Khandoli, PO-Motileda, P.S.- Bengabad, District- Giridih, Jharkhand ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bablu Das .…..Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A. P. P. For the Resp. No. 2 : None. ------ ORAL ORDER IN COURT 03/19.02.2026 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1050 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 by challenging the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Sri Kanwal Jeet Chopra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in MCA No. 1852 of 2025 arising out of Pachamba P. S. Case No. 98 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 115(2) of the BNS and Section 3 (r) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. However, despite valid service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the Informant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the 2026:JHHC:5082 2 allegation of cheating against the appellant is false and concocted. It is submitted that the appellant is also a victim of Radha Swami Organization, Bankhanjo. It is submitted that nothing has been mentioned regarding the criminal antecedents of the appellant in the case diary. It is submitted that the wife of the appellant Jaitun Praveen has also lodged FIR being Pachamba P. S. Case No. 100 of 2020 on 07.09.2025 against the said Organization, Giridih and other office bearers also and the copy of the FIR has been enclosed as Annexure-2. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 21.09.2025 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant has cheated not only the Informant, but also cheated other victims namely Rajjak Mian and Sunil Kumar Rana of Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- respectively and whose statements have been recorded at para- 26 and 27 of the case diary and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and from going through the records of this case, it appears that Informant has not appeared despite sending notice to him on 05.01.2026. 6. It appears from FIR that the appellant had cheated the Informant to the extent of Rs. 82,000/-on the pretext of providing Scooty. 7. This is a case of committing forgery of Rs. 82,000/- from the Informant and for abusing and assaulting the Informant. 8. It appears that the appellant is in custody since 21.09.2025 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 2026:JHHC:5082 3 considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant- Ravi Kumar Mahto is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Kanwal Jeet Chopra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih/or his Successor Court in connection with Pachamba P. S. Case No. 98 of 2025 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relatives of the appellant and also subject to condition that the appellant shall deposit Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) before the learned Trial Court at the time of furnishing his bail bonds, without prejudice to his case and which will be the subject to the outcome of this case i.e. Pachamba P. S. Case No. 98 of 2025 and if the outcome of the trial is against the appellant, then the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) will be handed over to the Informant. 10. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1050 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Sri Kanwal Jeet Chopra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in MCA No. 1852 of 2025 arising out of Pachamba P. S. Case No. 98 of 2025 is, hereby, set aside. 11. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1050 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 19.02.2026 Kamlesh/