2026:JHHC:12559 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.1018 of 2025 ---- Subhash Kumar Pandey @ Subhash Pandey, aged about 30 years, son of Ramji Shastri Pandey, resident of Shiv Nagar Colony, Bhurkunda, P.O Bhurkunda, P.S. Patratu (Bhurkunda O.P) District Ramgarh, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Reshmi Devi, wife of Avinash Kumar, resident of Shiv Nagar Colony, Bhurkunda, P.O. Bhurkunda, P.S. Patratu (Bhurkunda O.P) District Ramgarh, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Adv. ---- 06/Dated: 29th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I/C), Ramgarh, in A.B.P No.416 of 2025, arising out of S.C/S.T P.S. Case No.05 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126, 351(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S and Sections 3(1))(h)(viii), 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(n)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier the matter has been compromised between the parties. It has been submitted that it is a false and frivolous allegation against this appellant. It has further been submitted that the incident of two days have been shown in the F.I.R, but in the last incident, there is no involvement of this appellant. On that basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that it is a serious allegation. This is the exact allegation for which, `protective provision under the SC/ST (POA) Act has been made. 2026:JHHC:12559 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) 1018 of 2025 6. In a such scenario, the prohibitory provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act get attracted, and as such, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby, rejected. 7. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 29th April, 2026 Raja/- Shahid Uploaded on 30.04.2026