[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:6675)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2026
------
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Gupta, aged about 40 years, Son of Sri
Ashok Kumar Gupta, Resident of Old Check Post, Hurhuru, P.O.-
Hurhuru, P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribag ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Madhu Balmiki, Wife of Om Prakash Ram, Resident of Ravidas
Mohalla, Hurhuru, P.O. - Hurhuru, P.S.- Bara Bazar O/P, Hazaribag
Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribag ... Respondents
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl. P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order dated
09.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Hazaribagh in Cri. Misc. Case No.2095
of 2025 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.134 of 2024 whereby and
where under the learned Special Judge has rejected the regular bail
petition filed by the appellant.
3. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant took
Rs.11,00,000/- as advance to sale the land. The amount was transferred
to the account of the appellant but he did not sale the land. When the
money was demanded back, the appellant issued four cheques in total
for Rs.7,60,000/-; one of which was for Rs.1,60,000/- which has been
encashed by the respondent No.2 but the remaining three cheques of
1 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:6675)
Rs.2,00,000/- each were dishonoured in respect of which the
respondent No.2 filed a separate complaint case vide Complaint Case
No.3940 of 2023. The allegation in this case is that on 07.11.2023, the
appellant invited the respondent No.2 and her husband to his house
and when the respondent No.2 and her husband reached the house of
the appellant, the appellant abused the husband of the respondent No.2
by using filthy language and also used abusive language relating to the
caste of the appellant, came near the respondent No.2 and attempted to
touch her inappropriately and on being protested, the accused persons
of the case did 'Marpit' (Beating) with the husband of the respondent.
The learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, in the impugned order,
considered that the investigation of the case is going on and the
appellant evaded his appearance. After no coercive order passed by this
Court was vacated by this Court in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.773 of 2024,
police arrested the appellant and produced him in court on 20.11.2025
and since then the appellant has been in custody and rejected the prayer
for bail.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act failed to appreciate the fact that though for
the same allegation on 01.12.2023, the informant filed Complaint Case
No.3940 of 2023 but there is no reference in the said complaint
regarding the occurrence which allegedly took place on 07.11.2023; in
the said complaint on which date, the offences punishable under the
penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
2 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:6675)
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the occurrence of 'Marpit' (Beating), as per
the complainant already took place. It is further submitted that this
complaint has been filed with improvisation of the earlier case only to
entangle the appellant with serious offence and for wreaking vengeance
by instituting several false cases against the appellant. It is next
submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases failed to
consider that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute
arising out of land transaction and the appellant has already paid back
the amount taken by him by way of a cheque and amount of one of the
cheques for Rs.1,60,000/- has already been received by the respondent
No.2. It is next submitted that in the meanwhile charge-sheet has
already been submitted in this case. It is further submitted that the
appellant undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also
undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during
the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as
prayed for by the appellant in this appeal, be allowed.
5. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently
oppose the prayer of the appellant made in the instant appeal and
submit that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the
appellant, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for
regular bail of the appellant. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal,
being without any merit, be dismissed.
3 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:6675)
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
finds that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases failed to
appreciate the fact that though for the same occurrence on 01.12.2023,
the respondent No.2 filed Complaint Case No.3940 of 2023; there is no
reference in the said complaint regarding the occurrence which
allegedly took place on 07.11.2023 in respect of which allegations, the
offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is held to be
made out in this present case. The learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act
Cases also failed to consider that the dispute between the parties is
basically a civil dispute. Further, the undisputed fact remains that in the
meanwhile charge-sheet has already been submitted against the
appellant. So, there is no need of any custodial interrogation of the
appellant.
7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases,
Hazaribagh in Cri. Misc. Case No.2095 of 2025 arising out of Sadar P.S.
Case No.134 of 2024, is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed
and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act
Cases, Hazaribagh in Cri. Misc. Case No.2095 of 2025 arising out of
4 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:6675)
Sadar P.S. Case No.134 of 2024 is quashed and set aside and the regular
bail application filed by the appellant in connection with Hazaribagh
Sadar P.S. Case No.134 of 2024, is allowed.
9. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act cases, Hazaribagh in
connection with Cri. Misc. Case No.2095 of 2025 arising out of Sadar
P.S. Case No.134 of 2024 with the condition that he will co-operate with
the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of
the Aadhaar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will
not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and will
not annoy or disturb the informant, her family members or the
witnesses of the case in any manner during the pendency of the case.
10. Accordingly, this Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 99 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : March 12, 2026
NAFR/ Pramanik
Uploaded on 16/03/2026
5 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.99 of 2026
