Patna High Court
Vidhya Chand Jamadar @ Vidhyanand Kumar @ Vijay Chandra Jamadar @JaichandJamadar@Vidyachand KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The High Court held that the offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act is not made out against the appellant and that his alleged involvement in the shooting is prima facie doubtful, warranting bail.
Summary
The appellant, Vidhya Chand Jamadar, was arrested in connection with a shooting case where his brother Shankar Jamadar allegedly killed the mother of an informant. The FIR named only Shankar Jamadar for the firing, and the appellant was later implicated solely because of his familial relationship, with no specific act attributed to him. The prosecution also alleged casteist abuse under the SC/ST Act, but the alleged abuse occurred inside the appellant's house, raising the question of the required "public place" element. The Additional Sessions Judge refused bail, but the Patna High Court found that the public‑place requirement for an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act was not satisfied and that the appellant's involvement in the firing was prima facie doubtful. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court’s order, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, and directed the appellant’s release.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged casteist abuse committed inside a private residence satisfies the public place requirement of Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
- Whether the appellant can be held liable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for the shooting when the FIR attributes the act solely to the co‑accused.
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant in view of the prima facie lack of involvement and the non‑applicability of the SC/ST offence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1), 3(2)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- public place requirement
- false implication
- FIR
- prima facie
- scheduled caste
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1018 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- Kalyan Bigha District- Nalanda
======================================================
Vidhya Chand Jamadar @ Vidhyanand Kumar @ Vijay Chandra Jamadar
@JaichandJamadar@Vidyachand Kumar Son of Amirak Prasad @ Amirak
Jamadar R/o Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Chandi, District - Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rudal Kumar Son of Meghan Manjhi R/o Village - Badi Aamar, P.S. -
Kalyan Bigha, Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, APP
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 26-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act)
against the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge VI cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Biharsharif, Nalanda, whereby the prayer for bail of the
appellant was refused in connection with Kalyan Bigha P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2025, registered under Section 103(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of the Arms Act and
Sections 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The prosecution case as set out in the FIR is that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1018 of 2026(4) dt.26-05-2026
2/5
one Shankar Jamadar shot the mother of the informant on her
chest. The informant has clearly identified Shankar Jamadar as
the perpetrator. Despite this identification, Shankar Jamadar was
not named in the FIR. He is stated to be the own brother of the
appellant. The omission of his name from the FIR,
notwithstanding his clear identification, is a circumstance that
weighs in favour of the appellant at this stage.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
such occurrence as alleged ever took place and the appellant has
been falsely implicated. The appellant was named during the
course of investigation solely on account of being the brother of
Shankar Jamadar. No specific role or overt act has been
attributed to the appellant in the FIR. The specific allegation of
firing is attributed only to Shankar Jamadar. As regards the
SC/ST Act, it is submitted that the alleged use of casteist abuses
against the informant took place inside the house of the
appellant and not in any public place or public view. It is
contended that in the absence of a public place, no offence
under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out against the
appellant. The appellant has clean antecedents and has been in
custody since 21.12.2025.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1018 of 2026(4) dt.26-05-2026
3/5
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. This Court has considered the facts of the case and
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
7. On the question of the SC/ST Act offence, it is well
settled that for an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act
to be attracted, the act complained of must have been committed
in a public place and in public view. The alleged casteist abuse
is stated to have occurred inside the house of the appellant. On a
prima facie consideration of the facts as they stand, the
ingredient of public view does not appear to be satisfied.
Accordingly, this Court is prima facie of the view that the
offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out against the
appellant at this stage. This finding is limited to the question of
bail and shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the
case.
8. On the substantive offence under Section 103(1) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the specific act of firing has been
attributed solely to the co-accused Shankar Jamadar. The
appellant has not been assigned any specific role in the FIR. He
came to be named only during the course of investigation, being
the brother of the named accused. The belated introduction of
the appellant into the case, without any independent overt act
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1018 of 2026(4) dt.26-05-2026
4/5
attributed to him, renders his alleged involvement prima facie
doubtful at this stage. The appellant has been in custody since
21.12.2025 and has clean antecedents.
9. The learned court below refused bail without
adequately engaging with the absence of any specific role
attributed to the appellant in the FIR and the prima facie non-
applicability of the SC/ST Act on account of the absence of a
public place. The impugned order dated 17.02.2026 is
accordingly liable to be set aside.
10. In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed.
The order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge VI cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Biharsharif,
Nalanda in connection with Kalyan Bigha P.S. Case No. 60 of
2025 is hereby set aside.
11. Accordingly, the appellant Vidhya Chand Jamadar
@ Vidhyanand Kumar @ Vijay Chandra Jamadar @ Jaichand
Jamadar @ Vidyachand Kumar is directed to be released on bail
upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge VI cum
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Biharsharif, Nalanda or the
concerned court below in connection with Kalyan Bigha P.S.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1018 of 2026(4) dt.26-05-2026
5/5
Case No. 60 of 2025.
(Ansul, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.