[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kameshwar Saw Aged About 47 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:8789 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2026
------
1. Kameshwar Saw aged about 47 years,
2. Jiblal Saw aged about 37 years, both sons of Peru Saw,
Both residents of Village-Mathadih, P.O.-Parwatpur, P.S.-
Ahilyapur, District-Giridih.
... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. XXX d/o XXX
Resident of village-XXX, P.O.-XXX, P.S.-XXX, District-XXX.
... Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P.
For the OP 2 : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2025
passed in M.C.A. No.2367 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025
whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Giridih has rejected the prayer for regular bail of the appellants on the
ground that there is direct and specific allegation of assault against
( 2026:JHHC:8789 )
them and also the allegation of hurling abuse by calling the informants
by their caste name.
3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons abused
the informant, who is member of scheduled castes, by her caste name
and when the same was protested by the informant, they outraged her
modesty by tearing out her clothes and the appellant no.2 assaulted the
informant while the appellant no.1 assaulted her father namely Hira
Lal.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant,
police registered Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 and took up
investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation,
police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and the cognizance
of the offences has also been taken.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned court
below has failed to consider that the occurrence took place during the
quarrel, in respect of which the appellant no.1 lodged an FIR basing
upon which Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 has been registered for
the offences punishable under Section 109, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2),
352, 351(2) & 3, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and in that case also, charge sheet
has also been submitted by the police against the accused persons of
that case. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Giridih has also failed to consider that the alleged injuries sustained by
the victims upon the assault made by the appellants are simple in
( 2026:JHHC:8789 )
nature. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Giridih has also failed to consider that the appellants have been in
custody since 17.11.2025 and they have no criminal antecedents. It is
next submitted that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih failed
to consider that the co-accused persons, who assaulted the informant-
who sustained grievous injury, have been granted privilege of
anticipatory bail vide the judgement dated 14.11.2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.547 of 2025, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by
the appellants in this appeal, be allowed.
6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes
the prayer of the appellants and submits that keeping in view the
serious nature of allegation against the appellants, the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has rightly rejected their prayer to be
released on bail. It is also submitted that the victim Belly Devi has in her
statement under Section 180 of BNS, 2023 also stated that she was also
assaulted by the appellants, though in the FIR it has specifically
mentioned that she was assaulted by the co-accused, who have already
been granted privilege of anticipatory bail. It is lastly submitted that
this Criminal Appeal (SJ), being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
is of the considered view that the learned special Judge failed to
appreciate that, it is apparent that for the same occurrence two FIRs
( 2026:JHHC:8789 )
have been lodged. One by the appellant no.1 and thereafter the other by
the informant of this case. The learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Giridih failed to consider that there was assault and counter assault
from both the sides and the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih
failed to consider that in this case, charge sheet has also been submitted
and cognizance of the offences has also been taken and the co-accused
persons against whom, there was an allegation of causing grievous
injury to the victim Belly Devi haves already been granted the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih has committed a
grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellants
and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case where the appellants be admitted
to bail. Accordingly, the order dated 08.12.2025 passed in M.C.A.
No.2367 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in
connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No.07 of 2025, is quashed and set
aside.
10. The appellants, named above, are directed to 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 the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in connection with Ahilyapur
P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 with the condition that they will co-operate
( 2026:JHHC:8789 )
with the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant
and her family members and witnesses of the case during the
pendency of the trial.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ), is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 26th of March, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on- 01/04/2026
