2026:JHHC:12858 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.1112 of 2025 ---- Parwati Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Late Sudarshan Yadav, Resident of B.T.T.I Colony, Bhurkunda, P.O. Patratu, P.S. Patratu (Bhurkunda), District Ramgarh, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Reshmi Devi, wife of Avinash Kumar, resident of Shiv Nagar Colony, Dundhwa, P.O. Bhurkunda, P.S. Patratu Ramgarh, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kr. Choudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Adv. ---- 06/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 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (I/C), Ramgarh, in A.B.P No.428 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 2023 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. The case is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire allegation is false and frivolous. It has been submitted that the alleged date of occurrence is 27.08.2025, but the F.I.R has been lodged on 08.09.2025 i.e, much delay and the false allegation has been made for settling the personal issue. On these grounds, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that the victim was treated as an untouchable, for which, Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act gets attracted. 2026:JHHC:12858 2. Criminal Appeal (S.J) 1112 of 2025 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the prohibitory provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act get attracted. As such, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby, rejected. 7. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 30th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded