2026:JHHC:11405 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 548 of 2022 ------ Jitendra Kumar Jha, aged about 35 years, S/o Pawan Kumar Jha, R/o Near Durga Mandap, H.N. 150, Guasai, P.O. & P.S.-Gua, District-West Singhbhum, (Jharkhand) ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sushma Kumari, aged about 34 years, D/o-Jai Kishan Lal, R/o- C.C.L. Colony, (Naya Nagar), Barkakana, P.O.-Barkakana, P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) .…..Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Asit Baran Mahata, Advocate ------ JUDGMENT CAV on: 21.01.2026 Pronounced On: 18.04.2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Sections 14 (A) of the S.T./S.C. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Protest Case No.159 of 2018 (Arising out of Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017), for the offences under Section 354 and 506 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(w) (i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The informant-Respondent No.2 had submitted written application before Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh on 02.05.2017 stating therein that while she was posted as Block Co- 2026:JHHC:11405 2 Ordinator in Drinking and Sanitation Department at Ramgarh, she used to visit Ramgarh Office for official purpose. On 02.05.2017 at about 10:00 A.M., she went to Ramgarh office where the appellant Jitendra Kumar Jha (District Co-Ordinator) was sitting alone in his office. She sat on the chair, but all of a sudden, the appellant came from behind and caught her and tried to kiss her and bite her cheeks and thrashed her on the floor and tried to commit rape upon her. Upon which she protested and ran away. Then the appellant told her that he had committed such offences earlier to the tribal ladies and threatened her to kill. She further disclosed that the appellant used to abuse her as she belongs to Schedule Tribe. Thereafter she went to police station for lodging the F.I.R., but she was asked to move before the Superintendent of Police and hence, she filed the written application before the Superintendent of Police for lodging the F.I.R. giving rise to Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2017 dated 02.05.2017 for the offence U/s-376/511 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of SC/ST Act. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that after instituting the aforesaid case, the matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted Final Form No. 05/17 on 30.05.2017 stating therein that the allegation leveled against the appellant is false and no offence U/s- 354/506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is 2026:JHHC:11405 3 made out against the appellant.. It is further submitted that the appellant was posted as District Co- Ordinator in Drinking and Sanitation Department at Ramgarh, whereas complainant-Respondent No.2 was posted as Block Co- Ordinator of Patratu Block in the Department of in Drinking and Sanitation under the appellant on the date of occurrence and on the date of alleged occurrence the appellant had directed the complainant-Respondent No.2 to go to Kuju Office for official purpose upon which the complainant/O.P. No.2 refused and hence the present case has been instituted against the appellant. It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence was shown to the Ramgarh Office of Drinking and Sanitation Department where several other employees were working, but the no one from the said office has been examined as Enquiry witness nor anyone has supported the case of the complainant. 5. It is submitted that the informant-Respondent No.2 had instituted a complaint before the SC/ST commission and thereafter the SC/ST commission referred the matter to D.C., Ramgarh who conducted initial inquiry and in that initial inquiry the D.C., Ramgarh found it false. The said committee was comprising of senior officials, including the Director of DRDA, Ramgarh, an Executive Magistrate, the District Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Officer, Executive Engineer and one Lady Medical Officer. It is further submitted that letter bearing Ref. No. 851, dated 18.09.2017, issued by the Director, DRDA, Ramgarh, shows that a formal meeting for the joint inquiry was convened and both 2026:JHHC:11405 4 the appellant and the Respondent No.2 were directed to appear and present their respective cases and after a thorough inquiry, the Committee submitted its report dated 19.09.2017, with the conclusion that the allegations made by the applicant-Respondent No.2 are baseless. The committee verified the Online Biometric Attendance records, which proved that several office employees were present at the alleged time of the incident, making the alleged crime impossible to commit without being noticed and several employees of the office submitted a joint written application to the committee on 19.09.2017 (Annexure-S/1 series of the supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2025), stating that no such incident took place and the complaint was entirely false. Hence, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that this criminal appeal is devoid of merit. It is further submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. for thrashing Respondent No.2-victim in the office and the appellant had tried to commit rape upon her on 02.05.2017. It is further submitted that although the police has submitted final form in favour of the appellant, however, the complainant had filed Protest Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh and which was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh. Thereafter the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh had taken cognizance against the appellant under Sections 354/506 of the I.P.C and Section 3(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2026:JHHC:11405 5 It is further submitted that the complainant during her solemn affirmation (i.e., S.A.) has fully supported her case and enquiry witnesses i.e., E.W.-1, E.W.-2 and E.W.-3 namely, Jai Kishan Lal, Laxmi Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Ravi respectively have fully supported the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that the appellant is in habit of teasing and harassing the woman and due to act of the appellant the life of the Respondent No.2-victim has been harassed. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submissions of learned A.P.P., has submitted that the appellant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that appellant had tried to molest her on 02.05.2017 by thrashing her on the ground and tried to commit rape upon her and kissed her in the working hour of the office. It is further submitted that the complainant during her solemn affirmation (i.e., S.A.) has fully supported the prosecution case for kissing her and trying to commit rape upon her by the appellant. It is further submitted that enquiry witnesses E.W.-1, E.W.-2 and E.W.-3 namely, Jai Kishan Lal, Laxmi Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Ravi respectively have fully have fully supported the case of the complainant that the appellant had committed illegal activities with the victim-Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that due to act of the appellant the informant-complainant has lost her job. It is submitted that even the informant was examined by the Doctor at Sadar Hospital, 2026:JHHC:11405 6 Ramgarh and the photocopy of medical report of Doctor of Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh has been enclosed in counter-affidavit as Annexure- A. Hence, in view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected and this criminal appeal may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Records of this case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. 9. It appears from the F.I.R. lodged by the informant against the appellant that there is direct allegation against the appellant for taking hold of her from behind and also tried to commit rape upon her by thrashing her on the ground of office and who also kissed her. However, the police had submitted the final form in favour of the appellant on 30.05.2017. 10. Thereafter, the victim girl-informant had filed protest-cum- complaint Case No. 159 of 2018 on 19.04.2018 giving rise to SC/ST Case No.06/2018 and in which the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation (in short S.A.) on 04.05.2018 before the learned C.J.M., Ramgarh, however, three enquiry witnesses, E.W.-1, E.W.-2 and E.W.-3 namely, Jai Kishan Lal (father of informant), Laxmi Sharma (office colleague) and Mahesh Kumar Ravi respectively were examined on 10.08.2018, 11.09.2018 & 11.09.2018 respectively before the learned Spl. Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge 1st as the case was committed before him on 11.07.2018 and they were also put to question from the learned Court below. 2026:JHHC:11405 7 11. The complainant has stated by filing protest petition and during her solemn affirmation that while she was siting in the office on 02.05.2017 then the appellant tried to make indecent behaviour with her and caught her from the behind and bite her cheek and threatened her of dire consequences. Although her father was outside the office who enquired on her, but she did not tell anything to him. However, she had disclosed the above facts to her office colleagues- Block Co- Ordinator and Social Mobilizer-Ranjit Kumar Saw, Mahesh Ravi, Surrendra Tikka, Ajay Munda, Janadan Munda and they advised her to institute the case and then she came to Mahila P.S., Ramgarh, but police officials refused to institute the case and then she filed an application before Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh. The complainant was asked Court’s question by the learned trial Court and she stated that total 16 persons were working in his department and she has informed about the incident to one Laxmi Sharma. Thus, the conduct of the informant reveals that she had not informed the matter to her senior officials in her office. 12. E.W.-1 Jai Kishan Lal who is father of the informant had stated that his daughter was working in Water Resources Department (Peya Jall Sachchhta Vibhag) as a Co- Ordinator and the appellant works there as a District Co- Ordinator. However, when his daughter was sitting on chair and the appellant came from behind and caught her and started teasing her and kissed her cheek and bite her. He also alleged that the appellant also tried to commit rape upon her by thrashing her on the ground and threatened her of dire consequence, but his daughter came outside 2026:JHHC:11405 8 office anyhow from the clutches of the appellant and was weeping and when he asked her then she did not say anything to him. Then he took her with him and arrived at Kuju and her daughter has informed the incident to her colleagues and then all went to police station, but when her application was not received then she submitted an application before Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh. Although F.I.R. was lodged, but police has submitted final form in favour of the appellant-accused by showing the occurrence untrue. Hence, this protest-cum-complaint case was filed. During Court question, he stated that he was informed about the occurrence on the same day by telephone from his daughter then he informed this matter to his wife who was living at a distance of 15-20 KM. Thereafter, he came directly to doctor at Sadar Hospital where he had seen his daughter with friends and doctor examined her and given injection and then matter was reported to police. The statement of E.W-1 reveals that he was not outside the office of the informant, rather he was said to be at some other place and he heard about the occurrence from his daughter on mobile phone. 13. E.W.-2 is Laxmi Sharma, who also stated that informant had asked cream (Malham) from her due to inflammation and she informed that the appellant has used force and bite her cheek and abused her in the name of her caste and he had also threatened to remove her from the job. Thereafter, the appellant came to office around 3.00 PM after the occurrence, and then she had been called in the office of Executive Engineer where I.O. (Sakuntala Nag) 2026:JHHC:11405 9 took her statement and media persons were also present. Thus, E.W.-2 is also a hearsay witness. 14. E.W.-3 is Mahesh Kumar Ravi, who also stated that she informed about the occurrence at around 11.15 PM and prior to this, she has not informed anything and she also works in the same office where the informant is working. Thus, E.W.-3 is also a hearsay witness. 15. It transpires that the learned Court below on the basis of protest petition as well as solemn affirmation of the complainant- informant and also on the basis of statement of witnesses namely, Jai Kishan Lal, Laxmi Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Ravi i.e., E.W.-1, E.W.-2, E.W.-3, has taken cognizance under Sections 354 and 504 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 16. It also transpires that though the police has submitted the final form in favour of the appellant on 30.05.2017, but the Trial Court disbelieved the investigation conducted by the police and the Court has taken cognizance under Section 354 and 504 and Section 3(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Although the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections U/s-376/511 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of SC/ST Act. 17. It appears that the enquiry was conducted on 19.09.2017 by District Rural Development Authority, Ramgarh under the supervision of following members: i. Smt. Jyotsana Singh, Director, Accountant Administration and Self-Employment, DRDA, Ramgarh. ii. Smt. Monika Rani Tuti, Executive Magistrate, Ramgarh. 2026:JHHC:11405 10 iii. District Welfare Officer, Ramgarh. iv. Child Development Project Officer, Dumli v. Dr. Savita Verma, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh. vi. District Social Welfare Officer, Ramgarh. vii. Executive Engineer, Water and Sanitation Department, Ramgarh. Further also attended by the informant-Respondent No.2 and the appellant-Jitendra Kumar Jha. 18. It further transpires that even the department had conducted enquiry on 19.09.2017 under Director, but the allegation was not found correct which is evident from Annexure- S/1 series report dated 19.09.2017 which was duly signed by Director, Executive Engineer, District Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Officer, Executive Engineer and others. 19. It also transpires that although the informant had made complaint before the ST/SC commission against the appellant, but final report of ST/SC commission has not been brought on record by either side. 20. It appears that when the case listed on 01.05.2024 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary), as then his lordship passed an interim order in favour of the appellant and which also continued on subsequent dates. 21. It appears that the learned counsel for the appellant has made defective pleadings in the statement and had not taken case to properly place the facts and has not even place the Annexure while filing supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2025 and for which learned Court does not appreciate the conduct of the 2026:JHHC:11405 11 learned counsel for the appellant. 22. It transpires from the F.I.R. that the occurrence has taken place inside the office 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. 23. 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 2026:JHHC:11405 12 was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this 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.” 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 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.” 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant- Jitendra Kumar Jha is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks (04) from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the appellant is directed to be 2026:JHHC:11405 13 released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2017 and also subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be his own relative of the appellant and also subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) (i) to (iv) of the BNSS, 2023. 25. Accordingly, the impugned order 17.06.2022 passed in A.B.P. No. 135/2022 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh, is set aside. 26. Thus, the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 548 of 2022 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Pawan/ 18.04.2026 N.A.F.R-