Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:21374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 598 of 2025
------
Manoj Bhagat, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Manohar Bhagat, R/o
Village-Bhokta Toli, Simdega, P.O. and P.S.-Simdega, District-Simdega
…. …. …. Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Prakash Kerketta, S/o Late Iliyas Kerkatta resident of village
Alsanga, P.O. Mahkurdera, P.S.-T. Tangar, District-Simdega
…. …. …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP
For the Victim : Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Adv.
——
Order No.12 / Dated : 20.07.2026.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State
and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim.
3. In pursuant to the order dated 13.07.2026, both the parties i.e., the
appellant and the victim are present before this Court. This Court has interacted
with the parties, but it appears that there is no chance of settlement between
them.
4. Although Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars the grant of
anticipatory bail, such bar would not apply in case where no prima facie
offence under the Act is made out.
5. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2025
passed by the learned Vacation Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, SC/ST
Simdega in A.B.P No.90 of 2025 in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.40
of 2025, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the IPC and
Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the
appellant has been rejected. The case is presently pending in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge, SC/ST Act, Simdega.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no
offence under SC/ST Act is made out and it is a clear cut case of under
2026:JHHC:21374
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Further, section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act has
been shown which is non-existing and that also suggests non-application of
mind on the part of the concerned Court. This is nothing, but a counter blast of
Complaint Case No. 462 of 2024. The present case has been lodged after two
and half year of the incident. The appellant has criminal antecedent, but he has
already been bailed out. Further, it is a commercial transaction between the
parties and as such, he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel
for the victim have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stating that
the victim has been cheated in an organized manner by impersonation. A
person belonging to weaker section of the society has been exploited and as
such, the appellant does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
record, it appears that the victim has been cheated in an organized manner by
impersonation that too in a motor accident case.
Considering the nature of allegations and the material available on
record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
20.07.2026
Pawan/
Uploaded on .07.2026
