2026:JHHC:588 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.884 of 2025 …. Manish Kumar Yadav, Aged about 20 years, Son of Ajay Yadav, Resident of-Village-Simanpur, Post Office-Balbadda, Police Station: Balbadda, District-Godda ……Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Sarita Devi, W/o Deoghar Paswan, village-Simanpur, P.O.- Amour, P.S.-Balbadda Dist:-Godda ……Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No.05/07th January 2026 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging order dated 08.08.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Godda in Misc. Crl. Appeal No.707 of 2025 in connection with Balbadda P.S. Case No.45/2025 by which the prayer of bail of the appellant has been rejected for the offences under Sections 352, 351(2), of B.N.S 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. 2. As per the F.I.R, the appellant Manish Kumar Yadav and one another accused Aman Kumar Yadav are alleged to have threatened the Informant and her son of dire consequences by hurling the pistol. The accused persons alleged that the Informant was behind the seizure of one stolen motorcycle by the Police from the house of the appellant Manish Kumar Yadav and for which they threatened the Informant and both the accused persons had 2026:JHHC:588 2 abused the Informant in the name of her caste and they were also spreading terror in the village. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the allegations against the appellant are false and concocted. It is submitted that Informant is the mother of local Mukhiya namely Munna Paswan. It is submitted that the appellant is a social worker and he used to make some complaint against the illegal acts of the son of the Informant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 11.07.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the appellant and submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR and he alongwith another accused abused the Informant in the name of her caste and had hurled pistol before the Informant and hence the prayer of the bail of the appellant may be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, after adopting the submissions of learned APP, has submitted that appellant spreading terror in the village. It is submitted that the Informant during her subsequent statement in para-7 and the witnesses namely Bina Devi, Yugesh Yadav and Munna Paswan whose statement are recorded at para-8, 10 and 11 respectively of the Case Diary, have fully supported the allegation against the appellant for abusing the Informant in the name of her caste and also for threatening her. It is further submitted that the appellant has not remained much custody and hence the prayer of bail of the 2026:JHHC:588 3 appellant may be rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the appellant and other accused persons are alleged to have threatened the Informant by hurling the pistol and abused her in the name of her caste. 6. It also appears that there is no injury caused to anyone rather they alleged only hurled the pistol. 7. It appears that the appellant is in custody since 11.07.2025 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely Manish Kumar Yadav is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Godda or/his Successor Court in connection with Misc. Crl. Appeal No.707 of 2025 arising out of Balbadda P.S. Case No.45/2025 subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be own relative of the appellant. However, the appellant shall not tamper the witnesses of the Informant. 9. Thus, the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Godda in Misc. Crl. Appeal No.707 of 2025 in connection with Balbadda P.S. Case No.45/2025 is set aside. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.A.(SJ) No.884 of 2025 is allowed and stand disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 07.01.2026 Nishant/-