Satya Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

(2026:JHHC:7679)

¶2

I� THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHA�D AT RA�CHI

¶3

Crl. Appeal (SJ) �o. 764 of 2024

¶4

Satya Narayan, aged about 30 years, S/o Muneshwar Mahto, R/o P-69/ 4 C O D, Naraina Delhi Cantt, South West Delhi, PO- Delhi Cantt., PS- Delhi Cantt. and at present Jhiro Chatti, PO- Jhiko Chatti, PS- Bhandra, Distt :- Lohardaga.

¶5

Anjali Kumari, D/o Muneshwar Mahto, R/o Village- Jharo Chatti, POJhiko Chatti, PS- Bhandra, Distt :- Lohardaga.

¶6

.... .. ... Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Anil Oraon, S/o Late Birsa Oraon, R/o Village- Jhiko Chatti, PO- Jhiko Chatti, PS- Bhandra, Distt :- Lohardaga.

¶9

.. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶10

With

¶11

Crl. Appeal (SJ) �o. 494 of 2024

¶12

…………..

¶13

Muneshwar Mahto, S/o Late Dunwa Mahto, R/o Village - Jhiko Chatti, PO and PS- Bhandra, Distt :- Lohardaga.

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Jharkhand.

¶16

Anil Oraon, S/o Late Birsa Oraon, R/o Village- Jhiko Chatti, PO & PS- Bhandra, Distt :- Lohardaga.

¶17

CORAM : HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE A�IL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶18

For the Appellant (s) : Dr. (Mrs). Vandana Singh, Advocate Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate

¶19

12/ 17.03.2026 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

1. Both the aforesaid Cr. Appeal (SJ) have been filed under Section 14A (1) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶21

2. Since both the aforesaid Cr. Appeals (SJ) are directed against the separate orders by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants was rejected in connection with the same case i.e. Bhandra P.S. Case No.19/ 2024, hence, both the aforesaid Cr. Appeals (SJ) are being disposed of by this common order/ judgment.

¶22

3. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga, in A. B. P. No.302 of 2024 (arising out of Bhandra P.S. Case No.19 of 2024) registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 326, 307/ 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r)/ 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, whereby and where under the prayer for anticipatory bail of these appellants has been rejected.

¶23

1 (Cr. Appeal Nos.764 of 2024 with 494 of 2024)

¶24

(2026:JHHC:7679)

¶25

Crl. Appeal (SJ) No. 494 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga, in A. B. P. No.179 of 2024 (arising out of Bhandra P.S. Case No.19 of 2024) registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 326, 307/ 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r)/ 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, whereby and where under the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the alleged offences appear to be interconnected with the provision under Section 18 of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶26

4. The allegation against the appellant of Crl. Appeal (SJ) No. 494 of 2024 is that the appellant consequent upon eating of crop by the cow of the informant, tied the cow in his house and when the informant approached, he became enraged and assaulted the informant with stick.

¶27

5. The allegation against the appellant no.1 in Cr. Appeal No.764 of 2024 is that he assaulted the informant with lathi and iron pipe and allegation against the appellant No.2 in Cr. Appeal No.764 of 2024 is that she bite the finger of the informant with her teeth causing bleeding injury.

¶28

6. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, Police registered the FIR being Bhandra P.S. Case No.19 of 2024 and took up investigation of the case. Subsequently vide order dated 06.06.2024 on the prayer of the investigating officer of the case, the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)/ 3(1) (s) of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added to the FIR.

¶29

7. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the appellants that the FIR is silent about any offence punishable under the penal provisions of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is absolutely no allegation anywhere in the case diary to attract any of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga, has committed a grave illegality by rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants on the flimsy ground that the provision of Section 18 of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted. Learned counsels for the appellants next submitted that the alleged injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature.

¶30

8. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned court below in both the aforesaid Cr. Appeal(s) be quashed and set aside and the appellants be given privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶31

2 (Cr. Appeal Nos.764 of 2024 with 494 of 2024)

¶32

(2026:JHHC:7679)

¶33

9. On the other hand, learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed the prayer made in both the aforesaid Cr. Appeals, but fairly submits that nowhere in the case diary, the caste’s name of the informant has been mentioned.

¶34

10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no averment in the FIR of any occurrence or any offence punishable under the penal provisions of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, having been committed by any of the appellants. There is no material on record to suggest about the ingredients of any of the penal provisions of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 having been committed by any of the appellants.

¶35

11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga has committed a grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the alleged offences appear to be interconnected with the provision under Section 18 of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶36

12. Accordingly, the order dated 30.08.2024 in A. B. P. No.302 of 2024 and the order dated 19.06.2024 in A. B. P. No.179 of 2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga, are set aside.

¶37

13. The appellants, above-named are directed to surrender before the learned court below within six weeks from the date of this order and on their surrender, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lohardaga, and subject to the condition that they will furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant or witnesses of the case during the pendency of the case.

¶38

Accordingly, both the aforesaid the instant Criminal Appeal stand allowed.

¶39

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶40

Sandeep/

¶41

Uploaded.

¶42

3 (Cr. Appeal Nos.764 of 2024 with 494 of 2024)

Satya Narayan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Tuddu Alias Lalita Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendar Hembrom @ Rajendra Hembrom Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajnish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Sahu Alias Dilip Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surjeet Lal Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand