2026:JHHC:11323 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 419 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 419 of 2025 1.Sunil Mahato (35 Yrs) 2.Helen Mahato (38 yrs) @ Helen Chandra Mahato 3.Anil Mahato (47 Yrs) 4.Dubu Mahato @ Dubraj Mahato (62 yrs) All sons of Late Baidynath Mahato r/o Village Jargodih P.O. Soro P.S. Ichagarh District Seraikella Kharsawan …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Manpuran Lohra S/o Sri Ram Pado Lohra r/o Villar Jargodih, P.O. Soro, P.S. Ichagarh, Dist, Seraikella Kharsawan ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H. K. Mahato, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate 09/18.04.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the victim. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Seraikella in A.B.P. No. 20 of 2025 arising out of Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 126(2), 115(2), 352,74,75,76,79 of the BNS 2023 and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. The case is presently pending before the learned Additional 2026:JHHC:11323 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 419 of 2025 Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella. 4. The description of the land in question is as follows: Khata no. 153, Khesra No. 1110,1115, 1827 under Mauza Sodo, , Thana – Ichagarh, in the district of Seraikella Kharsawan measuring 16 decimals of land. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have purchased the said piece of land and there is a boundary dispute rather there is a dispute regarding possession of land also. It is further submitted that the land in question has been mutated in the name of the present appellants. Therefore, no offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act is made as it is purely a civil dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2- victim has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that the victim has been forcefully dispossessed from the land and he has been abused by naming his caste and thus, the offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record and the allegation made, it appears there is a sale and purchase of land in question and there is case and counter case between the parties also. Considering the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020(10) SCC 710, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 2026:JHHC:11323 3 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 419 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella in connection with Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024 on the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Further, the appellants will submit self-attested photo copy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile number before the learned trial court which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the Court. 9. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 18.04.2026 A. Mohanty/Raja Uploaded ____/____/2026