2026:JHHC:587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 924 of 2025 Sanjay Ram, Aged about 50 years, S/o-Late Vinod Ram @ Late Binod Ram, R/o Krishna Nagar, Kulipara, P.O-Sahibganj, P.S- Sahibganj (Town), District-Sahibganj …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Informant …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP ----------- 03/Dated:09th January, 2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of regular bail by challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Sri Rajni Kant Pathak, learned Additional Sessions Jude-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sahibganj in M.C.A No.584 of 2025, arising out of Nagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 74, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of B.N.S, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per prosecution case, the informant Sunil Kumar Paswan alleged that on 02.06.2025 at around 7.30 p.m he was being abused by the appellant Sanjay Ram and one co-accused Ranjit Ram without any reason and when he forbade them, then Ranjit Ram threatened him pointing Desi Katta by abusing him in the name of his caste. When he started living for his house, then the appellant Sanjay Ram assaulted him by Rod and co- accused Ranjit Ram assaulted him on the right head by the Butt 2026:JHHC:587 2 of his Desi Katta, due to which he sustained injury and both of them assaulted him mercilessly. On alarm raised by him and his wife, nearby people assembled then the appellant Sanjay Ram caught and dragged the arms of his wife for a long distance and tore her blouse with bad intention. The reason of occurrence is that these people were living there in his Parti land by constructing Jhopri. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR for abusing the informant only but he has not taken the name of his caste. It is submitted that the informant happens to be a Railway employee and working on the post of ‘Gateman’ and taking advantage of his better position in the society, the informant had physically exploited the daughter of the appellant for last several years. It is submitted that the informant had sexually assaulted the daughter of the appellant for last several years, who was working as a maid in the house of the informant and when the appellant learnt about the activity of the informant, then he anyhow solemnized the marriage of his daughter with one Saheb Sarkar on 05.08.2024. But when the Informant learnt about this marriage, then he went to the Sasural of the daughter of the appellant and committed mischief and as a result of which the daughter of the appellant was driven away from her matrimonial home. It is submitted that the daughter of the appellant had also instituted Nagar P.S. Case No.91 of 2025 against the informant for the offences under Sections 74, 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S, 2023 (i.e. Annexure-2). It is submitted that the allegation of tearing the blouse of the wife of the informant is false and concocted. It is submitted that the appellant is working in the hotel Green for last 20 years. It is submitted that the 2026:JHHC:587 3 appellant has no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 12.08.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R for assaulting the informant brutally and also for tearing the blouse of the wife of the informant. It is submitted that the informant in his subsequent statement at paragraph-4 and his wife-X, one Kanhaiya Kumar (brother of the informant), whose statements are recorded at para-8 and 9 of the case diary, have fully supported the case of the informant. It is submitted that the police has submitted charge sheet against the appellant and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 5. Perused the FIR, case diary and records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 6. It appears that after filing of the instant Criminal Appeal, notice was served upon the informant in the light of the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court through the Officer in- charge of the concerned Police Station and for which the learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit that the notice was served upon the appellant and the service report of notice is enclosed and which reveals that the notice was served upon the informant Sunil Kumar Paswan on 04.12.2025. However, when the case is called out today (i.e. on 09.01.2025) the informant has not appeared. 7. It reveals from the F.I.R that the appellant and one Ranjit Ram are alleged to have assaulted the informant and particularly co-accused Ranjit Ram is alleged to have assaulted the informant on his head by the butt of Desi Katta and due to which he sustained head injury. 2026:JHHC:587 4 8. However, from perusal of the statement of wife of the informant recorded at para-4, it appears that she has merely stated that accused persons Sanjay Ram and one Ranjit Ram were abusing her husband and calling her husband in the name of ‘Chota Jati’ and the appellant Sanjay Ram and one Ranjit Ram had got head injury upon her husband by means of Iron Rod and when she tried to save her husband then both the accused assaulted her and caught her hand with bad intention and snatched Silver Chain. The reason of occurrence is Parti land upon which the accused are living by constructing Jhopri and the accused were asked to vacate the same. However, statement of Kanhaiya Kumar, recorded at para-9 of the case diary, reveals that he learnt about the occurrence from the mobile phone of one teacher and when he arrived there then he learnt that Ranjit Ram and Sanjay Ram had assaulted him and caused him head injury and had caught the hands of his Bhabhi with bad intention. Both, the wife of the informant and brother of the informant have not supported the tearing the blouse by the appellant Sanjay Ram. 9. From perusal of the statement of the independent witnesses namely, Krishna Subhash Kumar, Ritika Kumari, Vikrant Kumar and Kanti Kumari recorded at para-37 to 40, it appears that there were certain altercation between Sanjay Ram, Ajit Ram on the one hand and Sunil Paswan on the other hand and Ranjit Ram had assaulted the informant Sunil Paswan on his head by Rod due to which Sunil Paswan sustained head injuries and Sanjay Ram had caught the hand of the wife of the Sunil Paswan. But the allegation of showing Desi Katta, abusing in the name of caste and snatching Silver Chain has not been found correct and even Vikrant Kumar stated that marriage of daughter 2026:JHHC:587 5 of the appellant was broken by the informant Sunil Paswan whereas Kanti Kumari is hearsay witness. 10. Para-31 of the case diary, describes about the receiving of injury report. However, the injury report has not been enclosed with the case diary and charge sheet has been submitted by the police and the case diary does not contain the injury report of the informant-Sunil Kumar Paswan. 11. It also appears that Arti Kuamri, daughter of the informant had also instituted one P.S. Case No.91 of 2025 (i.e. Annexure- 2) against the informant Sunil Paswan on 04.06.2025 under Sections 74/126(2)/115(2)/351(2) and 352 of BNS, in which she has stated that the informant got her marriage broken and the informant had assaulted her and her mother on 02.06.2024 and thrashed on the ground and the informant had touched the several parts of her body and for she had raised alarm and then the informant left by giving her threatening. 12. 12. It appears that there is also a dispute between the informant and the appellant with regard to break up of the marriage of the daughter of the appellant, due to alleged act of the informant. 13. It also appears that the informant and the accused- appellant belong to Schedule Caste category. 14. It also appears that the appellant is in custody since 12.08.2025. 15. Considering the custody of the appellant and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-Sanjay Ram is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Jude-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sahibganj in connection with Nagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2025. 2026:JHHC:587 6 16. Under the circumstances, the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Sri Rajni Kant Pathak, learned Additional Sessions Jude-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sahibganj in connection with Nagar P.S. Case No.89 of 2025, is set aside. 17. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 924 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 05.01.2026 Saket/-