Dismissed¶21

Manoj Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Anticipatory bail – appeal under Section 14-A, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2026Cr.A(SJ)/598/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manoj Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 598 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand (Rajesh Kumar, J.), decided 20.07.2026 — anticipatory bail refused under Section 14-A SC/ST (PoA) Act appeal; Section 18 bar discussed (no exemption as prima facie offence found); cheating by organised impersonation in motor accident case; Simdega P.S. Case No.40/2025; IPC 406/420/504/506; SC/ST Act 3(1)(x); appeal rejected.

What did the court decide?

Although Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars grant of anticipatory bail, that bar would not apply where no prima facie offence under the Act is made out. ¶14

Manoj Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:21374

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 598 of 2025

¶3

Manoj Bhagat, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Manohar Bhagat, R/o Village-Bhokta Toli, Simdega, P.O. and P.S.-Simdega, District-Simdega

¶4

.... .... …. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Prakash Kerketta, S/o Late Iliyas Kerkatta resident of village Alsanga, P.O. Mahkurdera, P.S.-T. Tangar, District-Simdega

¶8

.... .... .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. A.K. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP For the Victim : Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Adv. ------

¶11

Order No.12 / Dated : 20.07.2026 .

¶12

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim. 3. In pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2026, both the parties i.e., the appellant and the victim are present before this Court. This Court has interacted with the parties, but it appears that there is no chance of settlement between them.

¶14

Although Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail, such bar would not apply in case where no prima facie offence under the Act is made out.

¶15

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Vacation Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, SC/ST Simdega in A.B.P No.90 of 2025 in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.40 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. The case is presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge, SC/ST Act, Simdega.

¶16

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out and it is a clear cut case of under

¶17

2026:JHHC:21374

¶18

Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Further, section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act has been shown which is non-existing and that also suggests non-application of mind on the part of the concerned Court. This is nothing, but a counter blast of Complaint Case No. 462 of 2024. The present case has been lodged after two and half year of the incident. The appellant has criminal antecedent, but he has already been bailed out. Further, it is a commercial transaction between the parties and as such, he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stating that the victim has been cheated in an organized manner by impersonation . A person belonging to weaker section of the society has been exploited and as such, the appellant does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it appears that the victim has been cheated in an organized manner by impersonation that too in a motor accident case.

¶21

Considering the nature of allegations and the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby, rejected.

¶22

20.07.2026 Pawan/ Uploaded on .07.2026

Manoj Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Bhagat 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

Awadhesh Singh Alias Avdesh Kumar Alias Prashant Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ghanshyam Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sakla Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumari Ratnakar @ Ratnakar Kumari Alias Ratnakar Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Anti -Corruption Bureau

Ram Briksh Chouhan Vs the State of Jharkhand