[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:7692]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 307 of 2025
1. Om Prakash Yadav, aged about 51 years,
2. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Yadav, aged about 49 years,
Both sons of Mukhtar Yadav, R/O- BSL Jhopri Colony
Near Durga Mandi, P.O.- Siwandih, P.S.- Marafari,
District-Bokaro. ...... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Late Devchand Ram, R/o BSL,
Jhopri colony, P.O. & P.S.- Marafari, Dist.- Bokaro
..... Respondents
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) (1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities
(Amendment) Act, 2015 against the impugned order dated
11.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Bokaro in A.B.P. no. 141 of 2025 arising out of
Sector-IV (SC/ST) P.S. case no. 07 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 341, 354, 504, 34 of the IPC and
Section 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act whereby and whereunder,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro
rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.
3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants entered
into the house of informant and outraged the modesty of the
mother of the informant. The appellants filed A.B.P. no. 141 of
2025. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge,
Bokaro Considered that since the offences punishable under the
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 307 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:7692]
provisions under section 3(1) (i) and 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
involved in this case, hence, in view of the bar under section 18 of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, the Anticipatory Bail Application is not
maintainable and dismissed the Anticipatory Bill Application of
the appellants.
4. It is submitted jointly by learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that compromise has
been effected to between the parties with the intervention of the
well-wishers and common friends and a separate joint
compromise petition has been filed in this respect before learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro. It is next
submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Bokaro failed to take into consideration the fact that
no offence punishable under section 3(1) (i) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which
provides for punishment for compelling a member of a Scheduled
Castes or a Scheduled Tribes to dispose of or carry human or
animal carcasses or to dig graves, is even alleged in this case
hence the question of such offence being made out against the
appellants does not arise. It is further submitted that in the FIR,
there is absolutely no allegation against the appellants of
intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate
any member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place
within public view nor even there is any averment as to whether
the informant is a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes. Hence it is submitted that Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum- Special Judge, Bokaro has committed a grave illegality in
dismissing the Anticipatory Bail Petition of the appellants. It is
lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this appeal be allowed.
5. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2
fairly submit that there is absolutely no averment in the FIR that
the alleged victim is either a member of Scheduled Castes or
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 307 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:7692]
Scheduled Tribes and the investigation of the case is still going on
and the charge sheet has not yet been submitted, hence, in view of
the compromise entered into between the informant -respondent
no. 2 and the appellants, the respondents have no objection to the
prayer made in this appeal.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through materials available in the record, this court is of the
considered view that no offence punishable under Section 3(1) (i)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellants in the absence
of any allegation whatsoever against them of compelling any
member of Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes to dispose of
or carry human or animal carcasses, or to dig graves. Further, the
offence punishable under Section 3(1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is also not
made out, in absence of any allegation against the appellants of
insulting or intimidating any member of the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes with intent to humiliate them in any place
within public view; as there is not even any whisper in the FIR to
the effect that the informant / victim is either the member of
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties
and as no offence is made out under any of the penal provisions
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellants, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro has committed grave
illegality by rejecting the Anticipatory Bail Petition of the
appellants. Hence, the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge,
Bokaro in A.B.P. no. 141 of 2025 arising out of Sector-IV (SC/ST)
P.S. case no. 07 of 2024 being not sustainable in law is set aside
and the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the appellants is
allowed. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 307 of 2025
[2026:JHHC:7692]
within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the
appellants shall be released 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 Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro in connection with
Sector-IV (SC/ST) P.S. case no. 07 of 2024 subject to the condition
that the appellants will co-operate with the Investigation of the
case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy
of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an
undertaking not to change mobile phone number during the
pendency of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 17th March, 2026
Smita /AFR
Uploaded on 20.03.2026
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 307 of 2025
