Jharkhand High Court Flags ‘Parallel Administration’ In Sahibganj; Police And District Administration Ordered To Protect Pahariya Community And Ensure Essential Services
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Prasad dismissed an appeal seeking anticipatory bail and refused to accept a compromise, while directing the police and district administration of Sahibganj to immediately secure the constitutional and statutory rights of the Pahariya community and ensure access to food grains, water, and other basic amenities. The Court acted after noting allegations that members of the community were stopped from celebrating Holi, subjected to threats amounting to social boycott, and denied essential services such as ration, medical treatment, and access to public water sources by persons accused of enforcing local restrictions.
The criminal appeal arose from a prayer for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons apprehending arrest in connection with allegations relating to incidents that occurred during the celebration of the Holi festival in a village in Sahibganj district. The prosecution case, as reflected from the FIR and case diary, alleged that members of a tribal community were restrained from celebrating the festival, abused in the name of caste, physically assaulted, and subjected to collective prohibitions affecting access to food, water, medical treatment, education, and livelihood.
It was alleged that directions were issued to shopkeepers, medical practitioners, and others not to provide essential services to the tribal community, and that a government water source was damaged. Statements of several witnesses were recorded in the case diary supporting the allegations of social boycott and denial of basic amenities. The accused persons contended that they were not named in the FIR, that their implication was the result of rivalry, and that the matter had been compromised through a joint compromise petition. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, relying on the materials collected during investigation and witness statements identifying the accused and supporting the allegations.
The Court observed that on perusal of the FIR and case diary, “some people in the district of Sahibganj including the appellants are running parallel administration.” It noted that the materials indicated that the informant and members of the tribal community were restrained from celebrating Holi and were subjected to threats and prohibitions affecting their access to ration, medical treatment, education, and water.
The Court recorded that “the people of Paharia community in the District of Sahibganj were not only forbidden from celebrating Holi festival… but they were also denied the basic needs of food and water and right to live with dignity and decency in utter violation of constitutional rights.” It further recorded that witness statements consistently supported the allegations of collective directions issued against the tribal community.
The Court stated that the investigation revealed “complete negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer and also on the part of the Senior Officers of District Police Administration,” noting that despite the lapse of several months, no accused persons had been apprehended. The Court expressed surprise that “the case is still under investigation when the case has been instituted on 20.03.2025 and when such a mass threatening has been issued.”
The Court further observed that “the informant and her community have become minorities in their own district,” and that It appears that there is complete violation of fundamental rights of the Paharia Community in the district of Sahibganj at village Kasba, Sirasin for safeguarding the rights of the Tribal community and for giving them proper attention by the District Administration and as a result of which the informant had no other option but to get the case compromised and which is not appreciated by this Court.” It recorded that “the appellants and several other persons of their communities have taken law and order in their own hands,” leading to a violation of fundamental rights of the tribal community.
The Court held: “this Court finds no merit in the Joint Compromise Petition (I.A. No.10689 of 2025) dated 08.08.2025 and accordingly, the Joint Compromise Petition (I.A. No.10689 of 2025), is hereby rejected. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants is also, hereby, rejected considering the nature of serious allegation against the accused persons including the appellants.”
“The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj and the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj are directed to ensure proper security to the people of Paharia community by taking all necessary and appropriate steps forthwith. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand and the Home Department shall ensure the compliance of the order by sending it to the Principal Secretary of the concerned Departments to look after the welfare of the Tribal community and also the Paharia community.”
The authorities “are also directed to ensure supply of food grains, water and other basic amenities to the people of Paharia community. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, the Director General of Police, the Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, the Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj and the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj for taking all necessary steps for safeguarding the lives of the Paharia Community.”
“If necessary, then an appropriate Committee(s) consisting of Senior District Officials and Police Officials may be constituted for safeguarding the interests of Paharia community in Sahibganj District. The State Government as well as the Director General of Police should also ensure that no such incident may take place not only in the district of Sahibganj but also in the entire Dumka Commissionarate.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate
Case Title: Safikul Shekh & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:2184
Case Number: Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 670 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Prasad
