RANCHI, India, May 29 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 29:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Court), Sahibganj in A.B.P. No.312 of 2015 in connection with SC/ST Case No.67 of 2023 arising out of Radhanagar P.S. Case No.01 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 341/ 343/ 307/ 379/34/ 504 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
4. It appears that earlier the anticipatory bail of the appellants were rejected vide order dated 09.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.215 of 2023. The order reads as under:-
"Heard the parties.
Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Radhanagar Case No. 01 of 2023, for the offences registered under Sections 341, 343, 307, 379/34, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act, pending in the court of Sri Dheeraj Kumar, learned Special Judge (SC /ST Court), Sahibganj.
Appellants alongwith co-accused are said to have assaulted the informant, who is a member of the scheduled caste community. It is alleged that he was paraded naked in the village and the accused persons also threatened him of dire consequences, if he filed any case against them.
Considering the nature of allegation; no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, I am not inclined to release the appellants, on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected.
Appellants, if so advised, may surrender before the learned court below and pray for regular bail."
5. Thus, it has been rejected on the ground that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act gets attracted and the anticipatory bail is not maintainable as the offence clearly disclose the prohibitory mandates of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act.
6. Considering the nature of crime and the fact that the anticipatory bail application of the appellants have already been rejected, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, instant criminal appeal stands dismissed.
8. In view of the above order, I.A. No.16623 of 2025 filed for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal also stands rejected.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
