Dismissed¶38

Sagar Singh Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Aug 2025Cr.A(SJ)/118/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail dismissed; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act S.3(i)(s); B.N.S.S. 2023 sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 74; assault with vegetable cutter; caste abuse; outrage of modesty; touching private parts; delay in FIR registration; online FIR 21.12.2024; notice under Section 35(3) BNSS; Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 221 of 2024; A.B.P. No. 8 of 2025; Bokaro; interim protection vacated; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; decided 20.08.2025; Sanjay Prasad, J.

What did the court decide?

Going through the case diary, there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting the informant with a vegetable cutter and abusing her in the name of her caste, though she has not written the specific name of her caste. ¶30

Sagar Singh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant (Sagar Singh Choudhary) should be enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 221 of 2024. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the informant's subsequent statement (case diary para 13), witnesses Yashoda Devi, Rita Devi and Heera Devi (case diary paras 7, 9 and 10) supported the informant's case, stating that the appellant assaulted her with a vegetable cutter, outraged her modesty and abused her in the name of her caste.

¶31

Key takeaways

The informant was even hospitalized for a few days, as appears from the medical prescription dated 15.12.2024 and the discharge slip issued by the Community Health Centre, Chandankiyari showing her admission on 16.12.2024 and discharge on 30.12.2024.ratio¶32
The Police had not lodged the F.I.R. earlier on 15.12.2024; on the intervention of Police Officials, the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.12.2024.ratio¶33
From the rival submissions and considering the fact that the appellant had brutally assaulted the informant, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused; criminal appeal dismissed and Sessions Judge's order upheld. The appellant, Sagar Singh Choudhary, accused in Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 221 of 2024 under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 74 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was alleged to have tied the informant-respondent no.2's goat for damaging his crops and then assaulted her with a vegetable cutter on her hands and legs, touched her private parts and humiliated her in the name of her caste. Her application of 15.12.2024 was not acted upon by Chandankiyari P.S. and the F.I.R. was lodged online on 21.12.2024; notice under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S. Act went unheeded. Witnesses Yashoda Devi, Rita Devi and Heera Devi (case diary paras 7, 9, 10) supported the informant; the informant was admitted on 16.12.2024 and discharged on 30.12.2024 from Community Health Centre, Chandankiyari. Finding direct allegation of brutal assault, the High Court (Sanjay Prasad, J.) declined anticipatory bail, dismissed Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 118 of 2025, upheld the order dated 15.01.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in A.B.P. No. 8 of 2025, and vacated the interim orders dated 10.03.2025, 22.04.2025, 29.04.2025 and 01.07.2025.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:24962 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 118 of 2025

¶3

….

¶4

Sagar Singh Choudhary, aged about 41 years, son of Yogendra Nath Singh Choudhary, village- Kumirdoba, P.O- Kumirdoba, P.S.- Chandankiyari, District- Bokaro ……Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Shaibya Devi, W/O Nagen Rajwar, R/O village- Kumirdoba, P.O.- Kumirdoba, P.S.- Chandankiyari, District- Bokaro.

¶8

……Respondents

¶9

-----

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶11

----- For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate

¶12

Order No.06/20.08.2025

¶13

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶14

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st -cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in connection with A.B.P. No. 8 of 2025 arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 221 of 2024 instituted for the offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 74 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and under Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶15

As per the F.I.R., it is alleged that the goat of the informant-respondent no.2 had entered into the field of the appellant, namely, Sagar Singh Choudhary and ate as well as damaged the crops of his field and due to which the appellant tied the goat of the respondent no.2. Although, the respondent no.2

¶16

¶17

( 2025:JHHC:24962 )

¶18

admitted her guilt of her goat for going to the field of the appellant and for damaging the crops, but the appellant assaulted her by using vegetable cutter at her hands and legs due to which she was severely injured and has been treated at Sadar Hospital, Bokaro. It is also alleged that the appellant has humiliated her in the name of her caste and also touched her private parts, however, on alarm raised by her, nearby ladies came and helped her so that she could be saved.

¶19

It is alleged that on 15.12.2024 she has given an application to the Chandankiyari P.S. but the case was not instituted. But, an F.I.R. was lodged online on 21.12.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. It is submitted that there is a delay of six days of lodging this F.I.R., as the application was submitted on 15.12.2024, however, F.I.R. was lodged on 21.12.2024 and for which there is no explanation. It is submitted that allegation for abusing the informant is also false as it is evident from the F.I.R. itself that the place of occurrence was the half constructed house of the appellant where she was alone and she was not seen from anywhere. Even the victim-informant has stated in paragraph-13 of the statement that she was alone in the said half constructed house while the appellant was touching her private parts and assaulting her.

¶21

It is further submitted that statement of witnesses namely, Yashoda Devi, Rita Devi and Heera Devi recorded at paragraph-7, 9 and 10 of the case diary are close relatives and are well-acquainted with the informant. It is submitted that the independent witnesses Anu Devi and Basanti Devi, whose

¶22

¶23

( 2025:JHHC:24962 )

¶24

statements are recorded in paragraph- 23 and 24 of the case diary, have not supported the case of the informant and have not seen that the informant was being assaulted by the appellant by using vegetable cutter. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature. It is submitted that the informant by filing counter-affidavit has shown the photographs prior to the occurrence and has tried to falsely implicate him due to the village politics and the paper cutting as annexed in Annexure-B is nothing, but created by the informant and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail .

¶25

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting the informant by touching her private parts and for abusing her in the name of her caste. It is further submitted that notice was served upon the appellant under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. Act, but the appellant had never arrived for his statement. It is further submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for abusing the informant in the name of her caste and also for assaulting her by using vegetable cutter due to which she was severely injured and thereafter, she was admitted in a hospital. However, the informant tried to lodge the F.I.R. on 15.12.2024, but the FIR was not lodged by the Officer In-charge and hence, she was compelled to lodge F.I.R. online on 21.12.2024 by sending copy to the S.P., Bokaro and other officials.

¶26

It is submitted that apart from the informant the other witnesses, namely, Yashoda Devi, Rita Devi and Heera Devi have submitted their statements at para- 7, 9 and 10 of the case diary as the eye witnesses of the occurrence and they have also seen that the appellant had assaulted her Aunt by vegetable cutter and they

¶27

¶28

( 2025:JHHC:24962 )

¶29

had seen the appellant to caught hold of her Aunt in objectionable condition. It is submitted that the informant was hospitalized from 15.12.2024 to 30.12.2024 and for which she has filed her discharge certificate, which is enclosed as Annexure-C in the counter-affidavit and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from going through the entire case diary, it appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting the informant by vegetable cutter and also abusing her in the name of her caste, though she has not written specific name of her caste.

¶31

It further appears that apart from the subsequent statement of the informant recorded in paragraph-13 in the case diary, the other witnesses, namely, Yashoda Devi, Rita Devi and Heera Devi whose statements are recorded in paragraph-7, 9 and 10 of the case diary, have supported the case of the informant and have stated that the appellant had assaulted the informant by vegetable cutter and outraged her modesty and also abusing her in the name of her caste.

¶32

It appears that the informant was even hospitalized for a few days also and which appears from the medical prescription dated 15.12.2024 and discharge slip issued by the Community Health Centre, Chandankiyari showing her admission on 16.12.2024 and discharge on 30.12.2024.

¶33

It appears that even the Police had not lodged the F.I.R. earlier on 15.12.2024 and on the intervention of Police Officials, the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.12.2024.

¶34

From the rival submission of the parties and considering the fact that the appellant had brutally assaulted the informant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.

¶35

¶36

( 2025:JHHC:24962 )

¶37

Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected.

¶38

Thus, Cr. A (SJ) No. 118 of 2025 is hereby dismissed and order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st -cum-Special Judge, Bokaro is upheld.

¶39

Thus, interim order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Navneet Kumar, as then His Lordship was) and interim order dated 22.04.2025, 29.04.2025 and 01.07.2025 stand vacated.

¶40

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶41

Vedanti/-

¶42

Sagar Singh Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Singh Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mamta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Alias Manoj Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Nazam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajmuni Bhuinya Vs Employers , B.C.C.L. And Anr.

Kanhaiya Pathak And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.