Renu Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:2566

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 779 of 2024

¶4

….

¶5

Renu Devi, wife of Prakash Yadav aged about 33 years,

¶6

Asha Devi, Wife of Ram Prasad Yadav aged about 35 years Both Resident of Village Harmu, Karcha Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga. ……Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Nirmal Oraon, son of Budhu Oraon, resident of Raghu Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, at present village Karcha Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga .. …Respondents

¶10

With

¶11

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 803 of 2024

¶12

….

¶13

Ram Prasad Yadav, son of Manak Mahto, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Harmu, Karcha Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga ……Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Jharkhand

¶16

Nirmal Oraon, son of Budhu Oraon, resident of Raghu Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, at present village Karcha Toli, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga .. …Respondents

¶17

-----

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶19

-----

¶20

For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay , Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Shramin, Spl. P. P.

¶21

Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:2566

¶24

For the Informant : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate

¶25

ORAL ORDER IN COURT

¶26

07/29.01.2026 Both the Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No. 15 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 329(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(2), 352/3(5) of B.N.S and Section 3(i))(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Lohardaga.

¶27

As per FIR, which was lodged on 24.09.2024, the appellants and another co-accused are alleged to have arrived at the matrimonial home of the Informant- Nirmal Oraon and dragged him outside the house and assaulted him by the bamboo stick and fist and abused in the name of his caste and then on raising alarm made by the Informant nearby people and his wife came and saved him.

¶28

Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Nehala Shramin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the State and

¶29

¶30

2026:JHHC:2566

¶31

Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the Informant.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 28.08.2024 but the FIR was lodged on 24.09.2024 after around one (01) month and for which no explanation was given by the Informant. It is submitted that the injury sustained by the Informant was found to be simple in nature. It is submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed against the appellants and they are ladies. It is submitted that earlier FIR was instituted by the appellant namely, Ram Prasad Yadav in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 803 of 2024 against the Informant for assaulting his son on 28.08.2024 which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 in this Criminal Appeal. It is submitted that the statements of the witnesses in the case diary are not reliable for alleging the appellants for assaulting the Informant and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants are named in the FIR and they had assaulted and abused the informant by taking the name of his caste in his sasural on 28.07.2024. It is submitted that

¶34

¶35

2026:JHHC:2566

¶36

the Informant was treated at Priyanka Clinic. It is submitted that Informant in his subsequent statement in paragraph-3 and witnesses namely, Muniya Kumari, Teta Oraon, Sapna Kumari and Golden Oraon, whose statement are recorded at Paragraph-6 to 9 of the case diary, have fully supported the case against the appellants. It is submitted that Paragraph-27 of the case diary is the injury report of the Informant, hence the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

¶37

Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of learned Spl.PP, has further submitted that the appellants had also assaulted the Informant on several times and due to which the Informant was injured. It is submitted that Informant had sustained head injury and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

¶38

Perused the FIR, case diary and records of this case.

¶39

It appears that the occurrence took place on 28.08.2024 but the FIR was lodged on 24.09.2024 i.e. after delay of around One (01) Month by the Informant and for which, no plausible reason has been shown for delay in lodging the FIR.

¶40

It also reveals from the FIR that no specific caste name was allegedly given in the FIR except giving caste grace abuse.

¶41

It appears from the injury report of Informant at

¶42

¶43

2026:JHHC:2566

¶44

Paragraph-27 of the case diary that they have shown simple injury upon the Informant but type of injury has not been mentioned. Even after this injury report dated 28.08.2024, the Informant had not lodged the FIR and further FIR was lodged after delay of One (01) Month.

¶45

It further reveals that the co-accused namely, Ram Prasad Yadav (the appellant herein in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803 of 2024) had instituted Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 170 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 117(2) and 329(3) of B.N.S.S. against the Informant for assaulting his son namely, Subham Yadav aged about 12 years by bricks on his face due to which one of his teeth was broken and he has become unconscious.

¶46

Though the witnesses namely, Muniya Kumari, Teta Oraon, Sapna Kumari and Golden Oraon at Paragraph- 6 to 9 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case against the appellants but Independent Witnesses namely, Balram Oraon and Nagwa Oraon, whose statements have been recorded at Paragraph- 72 and 73 of the case diary, have stated that the appellants were not involved in the occurrence and they had not passed any castiest remarks against the appellants.

¶47

It is submitted that the appellant namely, Ram Prasad Yadav in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803 of 2024 had merely forbade the

¶48

¶49

2026:JHHC:2566

¶50

Informant for not abusing in his house when his ox had gone to graze the mahua thrown by the Informant. However, the Informant during his absence had assaulted his son namely, Subham Yadav aged about 12 years and hence, he was compelled to lodge the FIR on 29.08.2024.

¶51

It appears that the appellant namely, Ram Prasad Yadav in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803 of 2024 has not taken any specific name of caste against the Informant.

¶52

Considering the fact that the appellants namely, Renu Devi and Asha Devi are ladies and there is delay in lodging the FIR after One (01) Month, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.

¶53

Under the circumstances, the appellants namely, Renu Devi, Asha Devi in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 779 of 2024 and Ram Prasad Yadav in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803 of 2024 are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the appellants namely, Renu Devi, Asha Devi in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 779 of 2024 and Ram Prasad Yadav in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 803 of 2024 are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction

¶54

¶55

2026:JHHC:2566

¶56

of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-

¶57

I-cum-Spl. Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Lohardaga or his Successor Court in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No. 15 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S.

¶58

Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Spl. Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Lohardaga in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 389 of 2024, arising out of Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No. 15 of 2024 is, hereby, set aside.

¶59

Thus, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 779 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 803 of 2024 are allowed.

¶60

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶61

Dated: 29.01.2026

¶62

RKM/

¶63

Renu Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Devi 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

Safikul Shekh Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandar Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satin Hansda And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand