Patna High Court
Anju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the allegations do not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act, making the anticipatory bail application maintainable and setting aside the lower court’s order.
Summary
The appellants, who are relatives of the husband of the informant, appealed against the Additional Sessions Judge’s order rejecting their anticipatory bail application in a case registered under multiple IPC offences and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants demanded dowry and tortured the informant, invoking the SC/ST Act. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated and that the allegations pertained only to matrimonial disputes, not to any atrocity under the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined whether the facts disclosed in the FIR amounted to an offence under the SC/ST Act and found that they did not, characterising the prosecution as mala‑fide. Consequently, the Court held the anticipatory bail application to be maintainable, set aside the lower court’s order, and directed bail on the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged dowry demand and torture constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in a case where the SC/ST Act is invoked but no specific atrocity is established.
- Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 341, 354B, 379, 498A, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s), 3(w)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- dowry
- mala fide prosecution
- criminal procedure
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1096 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Anju Devi Wife of Moti Prasad Resident of Village - Stadium Road, J.P.
Colony, Ward No.29, P.S. - Town P.S., District - Madhubani
2. Rupam Kumari Wife of Shubham Prasad Resident of Village - Stadium
Road, J.P. Colony, Ward No.29, P.S. - Town P.S., District - Madhubani
3. Moti Prasad Son of Raj Kumar Sah Resident of Village - Stadium Road, J.P.
Colony, Ward No.29, P.S. - Town P.S., District - Madhubani
4. Subham Prasad @ Shubham Kumar Son of Vinod Kumar Resident of
Village - Rautpatti, Bara Bazar, Madhubani, P.S. and District - Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anjali Kumari Wife of Shaurabh Sanni Resident of Village - J.P. Colony,
Stadium Road, P.S. - Town, District - Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
Mr. Ram Narayan Mahto
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated
06.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-
cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)Act, Madhubani passed in
ABP No. 116 of 2025 arising out of Madhubani SC/ST P.S.
Case No. 101 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections
147, 341, 323, 379, 354B, 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1096 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
SC/ST Act, by which the prayer of the appellants for
anticipatory bail was rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the appellants are
family members of the husband of the informant. The appellants
are accused of demanding dowry and torturing the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have falsely been implicated in this case and no
offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this
case. He further submits that Appellant No. 1 is mother-in-law,
Appellant No. 2 is Married Nanad, Appellant No. 3 is father-in-
law and Appellant No. 4 is Nandosi.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the appellants.
6. From the reading of the entire FIR, it does not
appear that offence has been committed against the informant on
the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community and the
same appears to be a mala fide prosecution. The appellants are
the family members of the husband of the informant. The
allegations are of demand of dowry and torture which are
primarily matrimonial difference and in the opinion of this
Court, No offence under SC/ST Act is made out. Therefore, this
application for grant of anticipatory bail is held to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1096 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
maintainable and the same is allowed. Accordingly, the
06.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-
cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)Act, Madhubani passed in
ABP No. 116 of 2025 arising out of Madhubani SC/ST P.S.
Case No. 101 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
7. Let the appellants, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
Court in connection with Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 101
of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr. P.C./ Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…