Dismissed¶32

Kyamuddin Miyan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Aug 2025Cr.A(SJ)/225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail appeal dismissed; offences under B.N.S. sections 192(1), 192(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109, 74 with SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended Act, 2015) section 3(1)(f)(r)(s); alleged caste-name abuse, assault with Tangi and outrage of modesty at Ramgarh, Palamau; occurrence held to be in public view; counter-case Ramgarh P.S. Case No.-58/2024; impugned order dated 31.01.2025 by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act, Daltonganj; bail refused, appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, the Court found there is direct allegation against the appellants for assaulting the Informant and his family member, for causing injury to the Informant on his person, and for outraging the modesty of his wife. ¶27

Kyamuddin Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants' prayer for grant of anticipatory bail should be allowed in this Criminal Appeal challenging the learned Special Judge's rejection of the prayer as not maintainable. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that the occurrence took place in the public view on the land of the Informant.

¶27

Key takeaways

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the direct allegation against the appellants, the Court found no merit in the case and was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.ratio¶28
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants Kyamuddin Miyan, Khurshid Miyan @ Khurshid Alam, Tohid Miyan @ Tohid Alam and Avesh Ansari @ Abesh Ansari was rejected.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 225 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sanjay Prasad, J., decided 11.08.2025): Four appellants challenged the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.-02 of 2025 (arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.-57 of 2024) by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, then learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby their prayer for anticipatory bail for offences under B.N.S. sections 192(1), 192(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109 and 74 read with section 3(1)(f)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amended Act, 2015) was rejected as not maintainable. Perusing the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, the Court found direct allegations of assault on the Informant, injury to him and outraging of the modesty of his wife, and that the occurrence took place in public view on the Informant's land. Finding no merit, the Court rejected the anticipatory-bail prayer of Kyamuddin Miyan, Khurshid Miyan @ Khurshid Alam, Tohid Miyan @ Tohid Alam and Avesh Ansari @ Abesh Ansari and dismissed the appeal. A counter-case by the appellants (Ramgarh P.S. Case No.-58/2024) was noted from counsel's submissions but did not alter the outcome.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:32910 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 225 of 2025

¶3

Kyamuddin Miyan aged about 60 years, S/o Late Jhari Miyan

¶4

Khurshid Miyan @ Khurshid Alam aged about 40 years, S/o K yamuddin Miyan

¶5

Tohid Miyan @ Tohid Alam aged about 30 years, S/o Kyamuddin Miyan

¶6

Avesh Ansari @ Abesh Ansari aged about 19 years, S/o Khurshid Ansari … Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Lal Mohan Uraon …… Respondents

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶12

----- For the Appellant : Mr. Sushil Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 :Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate

¶13

…..

¶14

Order No. 05/ Dated: 11.08.2025

¶15

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in M.C.A. No.-02 of 2025 , arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. -57 of 2024 by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, then learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by the appellants is rejected as not maintainable for the offences under sections 192(1), 192(2), 190,11 5(2)126(2) 109, 74 of B.N.S. read with section 3(1) (f) (r) (s) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act 1989 (Amended Act, 2015) ( hereinafter to be referred as “SC/ST Act”.

¶16

The prosecution case, in brief , is that on 22.12.2024 at about 10:00 am the appellants alongwith others armed with deadly weapon arrived over the land of

¶17

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:32910 )

¶19

the Informant forcibly started digging foundation. When the Informant protested their act, then they abused him by caste name. They also assaulted him by Tangi with intent to commit his murder .The Informant raised alarm on which his wife came for his rescue but the accused persons also abused her and they also abused her by caste name and thrashed her on the ground and tried to outrage her modesty.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the appellants , learned AP.P. and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence whatsoever as alleged in FIR or at all. It is submitted that there is scuffle between both the parties for land and case and counter case have registered by both parties. The appellants registered FIR against the Informant and Informant Lal Mohan Oraon and Maldev Oraon in concern Police Station vide Ramgarh P.S. Case No.- 58/2024 instituted under section 126 (2) , 115 (2), 117 (2), 351(3) and 3 (5) of B.N.S. It is submitted that entire story is manufactured, hypothetical and imaginary only with an intention to implicate the appellants with ulterior motive and to grab the dispute land. It is submitted that there is no allegation of outraging modesty of the wife of the Informant. It is mainly land dispute between the parties and case and counter case have been registered against each other. It is submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive which is clearly evident from the fact that

¶21

¶22

( 2025:JHHC:32910 )

¶23

there is a land dispute took place between the parties on 22.12.2025, but the present FIR was lodged on 23.12.2024 i.e. after delay of one day . It is submitted that alleged occurrence took on private land of the Informant which is not in public view and hence no offence under section SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants and hence the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶24

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and submitted that there is direct allegation against appellants for assaulting the Informant and family members of the Informant and also trying to take possession of land . It is submitted that the witnesses namely Lal Mohan Oraon , Shiv Kumar Korwa , Maldev Oraon, Sarita Devi, whose statement have been recorded at para 2,7, 8 and 9 respectively of the case diary, have fully supported the case of the Informant and hence anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

¶25

Perused the F.I.R., impugned order , case diary and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶26

It appears that there is direct allegation against appellants for assaulting the Informant and family member of the Informant and for causing injury to the Informant on his person and for outraging of the modesty of his wife.

¶27

It appears that occurrence took place in the public view on the land of the Informant.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the direct allegation against the appellants, there is no merit in this case and this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶29

¶30

( 2025:JHHC:32910 )

¶31

Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants namely Kyamuddin Miyan , Khurshid Miyan @ Khurshid Alam , Tohid Miyan @ Tohid Alam and Avesh Ansari @ Abesh Ansari is hereby, rejected .

¶32

Thus, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 225 of 2025, is hereby, dismissed.

¶33

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶34

Bibha/

¶35

Kyamuddin Miyan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kyamuddin Miyan 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

Jaydeo Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The S P Cbi Acb Ranchi And Ors.

Jinendra Kumar Jain Alias Jainandra Kr.Jain Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Baby Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prahlad Chandra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand