RANCHI, India, Jan. 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 13:

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Sri Ghulam Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, CumSpecial Judge, SC/ST Act, Koderma in A.B.P. No. 14 of 2025, arising out of Koderma SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, by which, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned APP for the State and Mrs. Pinki Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

3. As per FIR, the appellants are alleged to have entered into the land of the informant and alleged to have abused him and his wife in the name of their caste and the appellant nos.1 to 3 are alleged to have caught the hair of the wife of the informant and humiliated her and they were also pushed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated and they have not committed any offence.

5. It is submitted that the informant has also instituted similar nature of case against various persons namely, Bhola Yadav, Bulaki Mahto, Surendra Prasad Yadav, Ravindra Yadav, Baleshwar Mahto and Gango Mahto for the same piece of plot obstructed by the villagers and in the said case, the said accused persons were acquitted by the learned CJM, Koderma by judgment dated 25.08.2017 in T.R. No. 346 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No. 80 of 2014 as contained in annexure-D of reply dated 27.11.2025.

6. It is submitted that Title Appeal is pending before the learned District Judge, Koderma by challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2022 and 05.11.2022 passed in O.S. No. 48 of 2014.

7. It is submitted that the appellants undertake not to disturb the possession of the informant. It is submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties and the informant is trying to grab the government land. It is submitted that all appellants are ladies and several appellants i.e. appellant nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 are senior citizens and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

8. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that all the appellants are named in the FIR and have abused and assaulted the informant and wife Neelam Devi in the name of her caste, and hence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has further submitted that the appellants come from influential families and they are not allowing the informant and family members to enter into the temple and also to plough his land.

10. It is submitted that there was land dispute between the appellants and villagers and for which the informant had filed Title Suit No. 48 of 2014 which was allowed in favour of the informant by judgment and decree dated 28.09.2022 and 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division-II)- Munsif, Koderma and the informant was the plaintiff no.2 in the said Title Suit.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x3nfk80uIUtIlTd79F99DGUphiucmJL33Mu0vQwiqVOM&caseno=Cr.A(SJ)/115/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010032102025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.