2026:JHHC:2041 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1045 of 2025 …. Dilchand Yadav aged about 44 Years son of Late Mahesh Mahto @ Mahesh Yadav, resident of Village- Dholiya, Post Office & Police Station- Hunterganj, District- Chatra (Jharkhand)…… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rambarat Paswan, son of Late Ramdeo Paswan resident of Village -Dholiya, PO & PS- Hunterganj, District- Chatra, Jharkhand ..… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A. P. P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate …… 04/20.01.2026 The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1045 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 arising out of Hunterganj P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per the FIR arising out of the Complaint Case No. 31 of 2023, the Accused No. 1, Santan Singh is said to have taken loan of Rs. 12,000/- from the Complainant in the year 2020. Thereafter, a panchayati was held in the village on 18.12.2021 in which the Accused No. 1, Santan Singh, Accused No. 2, Munsi Ram and Accused No. 3, Munni Devi had agreed to pay Rs. 1,36,000/- to the complainant by 28.02.2022 as they were said to have taken Rs. 1,12,000/- from the complainant. However, after the death of the father of the complainant, after much persuasion, they had returned only Rs. 50,000/- to him. Thereafter, the complainant 2026:JHHC:2041 -2- used to demand money from them several times. It is also alleged that on 20.08.2023, a panchayti was held by the Villagers and the Accused Nos. 2 to 7 i.e. Accused No. 2, Munsi Ram, Accused No. 3, Munni Devi, Accused No. 4, Vishavnath Yadav, Accused No. 5, Dilchand Yadav, Accused No. 6, Sudhir Yadav and Accused No. 7, Baso Devi of the complaint are alleged to have abused him in the name of his caste and threatened him of dire consequences. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the appellant has not taken any money from the complainant, rather the money was allegedly taken by the Accused No. 1, Santan Singh, Accused No. 2, Munsi Ram and Accused No. 3, Munni Devi from the complainant. It is submitted that the allegations against the appellant is general and omnibus in nature and no specific allegation is levelled against him. It is submitted that co-accused namely Vishwanath Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2025. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 09.11.2025 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant has abused the complainant in the name of his caste and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2, after adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the State, has submitted that the appellant is an influence person and also abused the 2026:JHHC:2041 -3- complainant in the name of his caste. It is submitted that the appellant has got nine (9) criminal antecedents including four (4) complaint cases and in which, eight (8) cases are pending in the State of Jharkhand and one (1) case in the State of Bihar and hence prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the Records and considered the submissions of learned counsels for both the sides. 8. It appears from the complaint that the accused no. 1, Santan Singh is alleged to have taken Rs. 1,12,000/- from the complainant in the name of committee and for which a panchayati was held for returning Rs. 1,36,000/-, but the accused no. 1, Santan Singh had only returned only Rs. 50,000/-. 9. It appears that on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 20.08.2023, the appellant along with six other persons are alleged to have abused the Complainant in the name of his caste in general and omnibus manner. 10. Though the appellant has got criminal antecedents and it also reveals from para-59 of the case diary that the appellant has got four (4) criminal antecedents and all the cases had been instituted in Hunterganj Police Station, but so far as this case is concerned, the appellant has only abused the Complainant in the name of his caste along with six other persons. 11. It appears that co-accused namely Vishwanath Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2025. 12. It appears that the appellant is in custody since 09.11.2025. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the other co-accused has also been granted bail, the 2026:JHHC:2041 -4- appellant- Dilchand Yadav is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri S. M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chatra/ or his Successor Cour in connection with Hunterganj P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024 . 14. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1045 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2025 passed by Sri S. M. Shahzad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1994 of 2025 arising out of Hunterganj P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024 is, hereby, set aside. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 20.01.2026 Kamlesh/