Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 69 of 2025 With I.A. No. 14671 of 2025 ---------- Ashwini Kumar Dubey @ Ashwini Dubey ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Chonhas Bek ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate ---------- CAV Pronounced on 18.04.2026 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 451, 504, 506, 420 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (To be referred to hereinafter as S.C./S.T. Act). 2. As per F.I.R., which is based on the Complaint Case No. 87 of 2023, filed by the Complainant Chonhas Bek, the Complainant is the proprietor of M/s Priya Traders which deals in rod and cement and the appellant for providing him certain land, took Rs.5,00,000/-, on 14.09.2021 as an ‘Advance’ for the purpose from the complainant to give it to the Land Owner and told him that land will be registered after issuance of online receipt. It is alleged that the appellant had also purchased rod and cement from the complainant worth Rs.3,08,536/- between 29.11.2021 to 07.03.2022 and Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 2 assured him that payment will be made within three months, but, he gave only Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) to the land owner and kept Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with himself and thus, he owed the Complainant Rs.6,00,000/- with interest. However, on demand of the Informant the appellant gave three cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 22.08.2023, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.08.2023 respectively to the Informant in the name of M/s Priya Traders but the said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund on 01.09.2023 by S.B.I. & on 02.09.2023 by the ICICI Bank with the endorsement “Payment stopped by drawer” and thus the appellant has cheated the Informant. After dishonour of the cheque, the appellant was given Notice by the Informant through the Advocate and then the appellant came to the shop of the Informant on 14.10.2023 and abused him in filthy language and when people started assembling there he left after extending threat. The matter was reported to the police and on their instruction, a complaint, bearing Complaint Petition No. 87 of 2023 was filed and the aforesaid complaint was referred to the Officer-in-Charge, Garhwa under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Court below and finally Garhwa Town P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 was instituted. I.A. No. 14671 of 2025 This Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2 (Informant- Complainant) for vacating the stay order passed on 10.09.2025 by this Court. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 3 3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Nawin Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the allegations made against the appellant are false and concocted and there is no occurrence of abusing or extending threat to the informant by the appellant and present case has been instituted by the informant under SC/ST Act against the appellant by concocting a story. It is submitted that the complainant is wrongly claiming the amount, with interest, of the payment due for the construction material purchased by the appellant from the shop of the Informant as well as Rs. 2,00,000/- kept by accused which was to be given to the landlord. However, no money of complainant was due with appellant and on 15.01.2022 itself appellant had given Rs. 3,00,000/-in the account of M/S Priya Traders which is a shop owned by complainant and the appellant had also paid money to the complainant from time to time and in support of his payment he has also given his account statement to the Police. It is submitted that the complainant is a Retired Bank Staff and taking advantage of his caste, he has got instituted this case only to put pressure upon the appellant. It is submitted that the complainant at the time of giving Rs. 5,00,000/- to the appellant, had taken Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 4 two blank cheques from him as security and when money was paid back to the complainant on 15.01.2022 itself, then he did not return the cheques to the appellant claiming that the same is kept with his wife and later on he started claiming the amount, which has already been paid. It is submitted that the appellant had appeared before the Police in compliance of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. with his reply and bank statement of transaction. It is submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case falsely by the complainant inspite of the fact that the appellant has already paid him back the entire amount. It is further submitted that even the place of occurrence is a shop of the Informant and no case under SC/ST Act is made out as the place of occurrence is not in public view, and during the course of investigation also, the people from the nearby locality have expressed their ignorance regarding the occurrence, which suggest that there is no such occurrence. It is submitted that in the light of transaction between the complainant and the appellant also, no case under Section 420 of I.P.C. or other alleged Sections is made out against the appellant. It is submitted that no money of complainant was due with appellant and on 15.01.2022 itself appellant had given Rs.3,00,000/- in the account of M/s Priya Traders which is the shop owned by the complainant. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 5 It is submitted that from 02.08.2021 to 21.11.2021 appellant had given Rs.3,09,200/- to the complainant through account and from 02.12.2021 to 06.08.2022 had paid Rs.8,27,700/- to the complainant through the account and the account statement in support of this submission is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.09.2025 filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has filed another supplementary affidavit dated 17.02.2026 giving date-wise chart, which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 17.02.2026 and hence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for Anticipatory Bail of the appellant and he supported the prayer for vacating the interim stay granted to the appellant vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Court. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for abusing the Informant in public view and hence, provisions of S.C./S.T. Act will apply. It is submitted that the appellant had given a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/-, dated 22.08.2023, drawn on S.B.I. Bank and two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, both dated 25.08.2023, drawn on ICICI Bank to the Complainant-Respondent No.2, which were dishonoured on 02.09.2023 and 04.09.2023 respectively. It is submitted that the Informant- Respondent No.2 and his witnesses have fully supported Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 6 the case of the Informant and hence, prayer is made for vacating interim stay granted to the appellant vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Court and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant-O.P. No.2, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P., has submitted that the appellant has cheated the Informant and hence, the appellant is not entitled to grant of Anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the witnesses of the case have fully supported the case of the complainant-informant as one Mukesh Tiwari and Rajiv Ranjan Singh were present on 14.10.2023 in the shop of the informant-complainant when the occurrence took place and they have supported the case of the informant, which is evident from Para 12 and Para 13 of the Case Diary and they also stated, that the appellant has used abusive language by using his caste name ‘Oraon’ and also by using filthy language. Hence, the provisions of SC/ST Act will directly apply against the appellant and hence, the case of the appellant is fit to be dismissed and also stay order passed on 10.09.2025 by this Court is fit to be vacated. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that he has filed the documentary evidence signed and written by the appellant and the same has been given to the Investigation Officer, which is reproduced in Para 46 of the Case Diary. It is submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedent in similar nature of case, which is Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 7 evident from the Para 117 of the Case Diary as appellant is a habitual offender. 7. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has a shop, namely Priya Traders from where the appellant used to purchase the raw materials like rod, cement, tar etc. since 2019 for his own work and he paid the credit amount to the Complainant-Respondent No.2 and by showing that before this High Court, he got the interim order and he has not given the said amount to the Respondent No.2 which has been taken by the appellant for the purpose of Land and the amount with respect to purchase of raw materials on credit although he had promised the Respondent No.2 with a signed document that he will pay all the due amount to the Respondent No.2 by 28.12.2022. Thereafter, the appellant has given Three cheques of Rupees Two (02) Lakhs (Rs.2,00,000/-), Rupees One (01) Lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-_ and Rupees Three (03) Lakhs (Rs.3,00,000/-) to the Respondent No.2. However, Cheque No. 289810, dated 22.08.2023, for Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lacs), was dishonored on 02.09.2023 on the basis of insufficient fund in A/C no. 373036646243, whereas Cheque No. 000846, dated 25.08.2023 of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac only), dishonored on 02.09.2023 as payment has been stopped by drawer and Cheque no.000843 dated 25.08.2023 of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rs. Three lacs only), was dishonored on 02.09.2023, as payment has been stopped by drawer. The photocopy of cheques and cheque bounce slips have been enclosed with the I.A. No. 14671 of 2025, as Annexure-2 series. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 8 8. It is submitted that the appellant has also given promissory note to the O.P. No. 2 in the Pad of M/S. Priya Traders with his signature on 15.01.2022 to return the amount by 16.06.2022 but he did not return the same. It is also submitted that appellant has several criminal antecedents of similar nature pending before Civil Courts. As the appellant is a habitual offender and he has misguided the High Court for taking the benefit of No-coercive step against him. It is further submitted that the appellant has obtained the interim order dated 10.09.2025 of no- coercive step against the Informant by misleading the Court, hence the order passed on 10.09.2025 by this Court may be vacated and Anticipatory Bail of the appellant may be rejected. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has concealed several material facts. It is submitted that the witnesses Mukesh Tiwari and Rajiv Ranjan Singh are hearsay witnesses and one of the witnesses, namely Ashish Yadav has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that in I.A. No. 14671 of 2025 the Informant is totally silent about payment of Rs.11,36,700/- made by the appellant to the complainant through his bank account and also cash amount deposited by the appellant against due amount as is apparent from the statement of due account enclosed by Respondent No.2. It is submitted that so far as the cheque given by the appellant is concerned, appellant had paid Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 9 Rs.3,00,000/- in the account of M/s Priya Traders on 15.01.2022 itself and had requested to return the undated cheque which was given to the Informant-Respondent No.2 for security, but the complainant did not return the same, hence, the appellant may be granted Anticipatory Bail. 10. Perused the F.I.R. arising out of Complaint Petition No. 87 of 2023, the Case Diary, I.A. No. 14671 of 2025 and considered the submission of both sides. 11. It appears that although the witnesses, namely Mukesh Tiwari and Rajiv Ranjan Sahay, in Para 12 and 13 of the Case Diary, have supported the allegation of the Informant, but they are hearsay witnesses. 12. It also appears that the witnesses, namely Ramashish Yadav, whose statement is recorded at Para 14 of the Case Diary, has not supported the allegation against the appellant and had stated that he also used to take rod/cement and various articles from the shop of the Informant, but he had not seen any incident on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 14.10.2023. 13. Para 61 of the Case Diary reveals that the Informant had stated before the I.O. that he had given Rupees Five (05) lakh (Rs.5,00,000/-) to the accused for purchasing the land, but the appellant had merely given Rupees Three (03) Lakhs (Rs.3,00,000/-) to the land owner and kept the remaining amount with him. However, Para 62 of Case Diary reveals that the statement of land owner, namely Rajeshwar Pandey recorded through the Mobile Phone by the I.O. and who stated that he along with his brother Arvind Pandey have sold 3.75 decimal of land to the Informant Chonhas Bek Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 10 and they have received the entire amount from the Purchaser. However, he learnt that the appellant had taken Rupees Five (05) lakh (Rs.5,00,000/-) from Informant-Chonhas Bek for the said land and he is also not aware of any dispute between the appellant and the Informant. Para 70 of the Case Diary shows that the Informant has disclosed to have received money in three different bank accounts, i.e. one Bank account of ICICI Bank and two S.B.I. Bank accounts. Para 82, 84, 92, 98 and 107 of the Case Diary reveal that the I.O. had demanded return memo of the cheques of Rs.2.00 lac and Rs.1.00 lac and Rs.3.00 lac respectively from the State Bank of India as well as ICICI Bank, but the Branch Manager informed him of making the same available in some time. Para No. 117 of the Case Diary shows that the appellant has got criminal antecedent being accused in Kandi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2023 dated 09.10.2023 instituted under Sections 496, 420, 506 of I.P.C. 14. It appears that the appellant has stated that he had paid Rs.8,27,700/- to the Complainant through his Bank account but the statement of the State Bank account is not enclosed rather he merely prepared a chart on a plain sheet. 15. It appears that the learned counsel for the appellant is careless in not making proper averments with regard to the amount paid by the appellant to the Informant by filing supplementary affidavit and learned counsel for the appellant has merely enclosed statements Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 11 of the Bank Account of the appellant and neither proper pleading nor proper averments has been made in the supplementary affidavit dated 04.09.2025 filed by the appellant in which the Bank statement and several receipts of payment have been enclosed. The approach of learned counsel for the appellant is deprecated by this Court and the Court cautions him to remain careful in future. 16. It also reveals from the pleadings that even the cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the Informant in his State Bank of India account had bounced on 02.09.2023 with the endorsement “Insufficient fund” and the cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively had bounced on 04.09.2023 with the endorsement “Stopped by drawer”. Therefore, the informant had sent legal Notice through his counsel on 08.09.2023 and which was received by the appellant on 09.09.2023 and 11.09.2023 respectively. 17. Thereafter, the Informant has instituted complaint case No. 87 of 2023 before the learned Special Judge-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Garhwa. However, the said Complaint Case No. 87 of 2023 was sent to Garhwa P.S. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to register the case under Section 451/504/506/420 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act by the order of learned Special Judge-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Garhwa. Thereafter, the Police has instituted Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 on 06.01.2024 under Section 451/504/506/420 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 12 18. It appears from Annexure-1 series of the I.A. No. 14671 of 2025 filed by the Informant-Respondent No.2, from Pages 13 to 20, that there are several transactions of purchase of cement, Rod and other house building articles and also payment of money between the Informant-Respondent No.2 and the appellant and series of transactions reveal that the appellant had taken the articles on various dates. 19. It appears that the alleged occurrence of abuse in the name of caste has taken place on 14.10.2023, however, the Informant has filed the Complaint Case on 16.10.2023 on the ground that the F.I.R. was not lodged by the Police. 20. It also appears that the cheques given by the appellant to the Respondent No.2-Informant have bounced on 02.09.2023 and 04.09.2023, but the complaint case was filed on 16.10.2023 under Section 451, 504, 506, 420 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act instead of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 21. It appears that the learned Trial Court has sent the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 21.12.2023and F.I.R. was lodged on 06.01.2024 against the appellant. Thus, the Informant- Respondent No.2 cannot take the advantage of lodging the F.I.R. under Section 420 of I.P.C. and other allied sections of I.P.C. instead of proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 22. It appears that it is a case of civil dispute between the appellant and the Informant. It also appears that the Informant has not denied receiving Rs.8,27,700/- from the appellant between 02.12.2021 to 06.08.2022. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 13 23. It transpires from the F.I.R. that the occurrence has taken place inside the shop of the Informant and there is no public view and therefore, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh Versus State reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted. 24. It has been held in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, at Para 14 and 15 as follows:- “Para 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 14 was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” ce within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” Para 15:- As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11358 ) 15 view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.” 25. Considering the fact mentioned above and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant, namely Ashwini Kumar Dubey @ Ashwini Dubey is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within Four (04) weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the appellant shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, to the satisfaction of the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa and also subject to the provisions of Section 482 (2) (i) to (iv) of B.N.S.S. 26. Accordingly, order dated 22.11.2024, passed in A.B.P. No. 808 of 2024, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Garhwa is set aside. 27. Accordingly, I.A. No. 14671 of 2025 stands rejected. 28. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 69 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 18.04.2026