[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Tarik Anwar @ Md. Tarik Anwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:8665)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 30 of 2026
Tarik Anwar @ Md. Tarik Anwar, aged about 26 years, s/o Md. Attaul
@ Ataul Ansari, r/o Baccha, Mandro, P.O.+P.S.-Mirzachowki, Dist.-
Sahibganj
.... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Mahfuj Ansari, s/o late Jawahar Ali, r/o Village-Bishanpur,
P.O.-Bhagaiya, P.S.- Mirzachowki, Dist.-Sahibganj
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III
: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 17.12.2025
passed by the learned I/c Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj
whereby and whereunder, the learned I/c Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Sahibganj has rejected the prayer for regular bail of the
appellant filed in connection with SC/ST Case No. 53 of 2025
arising out of Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025,
corresponding to M.C.A. No. 757 of 2025.
3. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant in a
conversation over mobile with the informant has used some filthy
(2026:JHHC:8665)
language and obscene words against the Member of Legislative
Assembly from Borio namely Dhananjay Soren and also made
several postings in social media by referring the said MLA as sala
santhal.
4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, police
registered Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025 and took up
investigation of the case.
5. The appellant filed an application for prayer of regular bail and
the same was rejected vide the impugned order keeping in view
the gravity of the offence. Charge sheet has been submitted
against the appellant for having committed the offences
punishable under Sections 308(3), 356(2), 356(4), 351(2) and 352 of
B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
alleged aggrieved person being the MLA of Borio has no
grievance and the informant is a third party. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned I/c
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj has failed to consider that the
alleged victim has no grievance against the appellant. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned I/c Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj has also failed to
consider that in the photocopy of the alleged posting made by the
appellant, nowhere any objectionable word has been used by the
appellant in order to constitute the offence punishable under
(2026:JHHC:8665)
Sections 3 (1) (r) or (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is then submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the learned I/c Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj ought to have granted the prayer for
bail since the appellant has been in custody since 21.10.2025 and
charge sheet has already been submitted. Therefore, it is
submitted that the learned I/c Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Sahibganj ought to have released the appellant on bail, more so as
the appellant has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in ground
nos. ii and xvi of this appeal. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as made in this criminal appeal be allowed.
7. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes
the prayer.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that
there is no material in the record to suggest that the alleged victim
has grievance against the appellant. The copy of the posting
allegedly made by the appellant in the social media annexed with
the FIR do not show any offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r)
or (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The charge sheet has already been
submitted. The appellant has been in custody for a considerable
period of time. The appellant has never committed any heinous
offence.
(2026:JHHC:8665)
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned I/c Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj has
committed a grave illegality in refusing to release the appellant on
bail and keeping in view the facts of the case in the considered
opinion of this Court, the appellant is entitled to be released on
bail.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the
learned I/c Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj in connection
with SC/ST Case No. 53 of 2025 arising out of Mirzachouki P.S.
Case No. 76 of 2025, corresponding to M.C.A. No. 757 of 2025 is
quashed and set aside and 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 I/c Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj in
connection with SC/ST Case No. 53 of 2025 arising out of
Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025, corresponding to M.C.A.
No. 757 of 2025 with the condition that the appellant will
cooperate with the trial of this case and will not make any posting
in any social media during the trial of the case nor will annoy or
disturb the witnesses of the informant in any manner during the
trial of the case.
11. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 26th March, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 30/03/2026
