2026:JHHC:12866 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.718 of 2025 ---- Imran Ansari, aged about 31 years, Son of Sahruddin Ansari, resident of Village Balu, Kokdoro, P.O & P.S. Pithoria, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Butan Devi, wife of Dhaneshwar Pahan, resident of Village Hethbalu, P.O & P.S. Pithoria, District Ranchi, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Adv. ---- 07/Dated: 30th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned A.J.C-II-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi, in A.B.P No.1602 of 2025, arising out of Pithoria P.S. Case No.39 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 299, 300, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S and Sections 3(1))(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. The case is pending in the Court of learned A.J.C-II-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the name of the appellant was subsequently added and no specific allegation has been made against him. As such, provision for anticipatory bail is available to him as he is innocent. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the veracity of allegations cannot be looked into; rather, if Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act gets attracted, then the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is ousted. 2026:JHHC:12866 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) 718 of 2025 6. Considering the nature of allegations made herein, this Court finds that the Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act comes into play. 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 dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 30th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 04.05.2026