2026:JHHC:11842 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 500 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 500 of 2025 1.Shakuntalal Devi aged about 47 years W/o Jainarayan Pandit @ Narayan Pandit 2.Jainarayan Pandit @ Narayan Pandit aged about 61 Years S/o Late Doman Pandit @ Demon Pandit 3.Manoj Pandit aged about 36 years. 4.Chhotan Pandit @ Dularchand Pandit aged about 27 years 5.Balmukund Pandit aged about 26 years. 6.Sandeep Pandit aged about 24 years. Appellants no. 3 to 6 S/O Jainarayan Pandit @ Narayan Pandit all R/O Village Mahuar ( Barotand), P.O. + P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Santu Mahtha @ Santu Pasi S/o Late Nunman Pasi R/o Village Mahuar (Barotand), P.O. + P.S. Bengabad, District- Giridih ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent no.2 : Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P. 09/22.04.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.2-victim as well as learned counsel for the State. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Giridih in A.B.P. No. 296 of 2025 arising out of Giridih (S.C./S.T.) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 147,148,149,323,341,386,354(B)/379 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) 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 court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Case, Giridih. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2026, Mr. Randhir Kumar 2026:JHHC:11842 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 500 of 2025 Singh, Sub Inspector of Bengabad Police Station is present before this Court. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that although grant of anticipatory bail is prohibited under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, but there is a land dispute and the land in question is in possession of the appellants as it appears from the investigation done by the Police. The appellants are the victims and since, it is a land dispute, reference is made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020(10) SCC 710. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant (respondent no.2) has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that there is a land dispute between the parties and the land in question is in possession of the appellants as per the investigation done by the Police. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in the light of judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 9. 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) eachwith two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Giridih in connection with Giridih (S.C./S.T.) P.S. Case No. 23 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 this case without prior 2026:JHHC:11842 3 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 500 of 2025 permission of the Court. 10. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer is dispensed with. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 22.04.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026