Patna High Court
Dhan Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Dhan Kumar Singh, was charged with offences under the IPC (sections 341, 323, 307, 427, 120B), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Arms Act for an alleged armed assault that began with a dispute over straw prices and escalated to arson and shooting, injuring several persons including Jai Shankar. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the injury report did not support the allegation of a chest wound, and that the case stemmed from a commercial dispute. The State, represented by a Special Public Prosecutor, highlighted the appellant’s prior criminal antecedents, the seriousness of the offences, and the risk of absconding if bail were granted. The appeal sought bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the Court found the allegations credible and the risk of non‑appearance significant. Consequently, the Court refused bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the seriousness of the offences and the appellant’s antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 323, 341, 427
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste violence
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- false implication
- scheduled caste
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1099 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan
======================================================
Dhan Kumar Singh son of Chandradev Singh Resident of Village -Sawan
Bigrah (Ram Gadhi) Ps- Daraunda District -Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sita Devi Wife of Brajesh Ram Resident of village- Itahwa, Ps- Itahwa Dist-
Barshihar (Uttar Pradesh ) At Present Residing at Village- Sawan Bigrah
Tole, Ram Gadhi, ps- Daraunda, Dist- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashish, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special PP for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated
13.02.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Siwan in connection with Daraunda P.S.
Case No. 30 of 2024 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307,
427 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1) (r)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act as well as Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1099 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
appellant has antecedent of two cases and is in custody since
14.01.2026 and the informant alleges that appellant on
10.02.2024 at 08:00 AM came to purchase straw, but an
altercation took place on account of rate, thereafter appellant left
abusing, further at 09:00 PM on the same day, Aman, Raman
and appellant set ablaze the straw of her Bhabhi, Sangita, for
which a case was instituted by Sangita in the police station,
thereafter again the named accused persons including the
appellant came and abused by caste name and threatened to
withdraw the case, further on 11.02.2024, Male leader, Jai
Shankar came to her house when named accused persons
including the appellant came variously armed and attacked the
house of Sangita and Rohit fired causing injury on leg of the
informant and Shivam fired causing injury on stomach of her
son, Shivam, while Ankit fired causing injury on leg of Manu,
further when Jai Shankar tried to flee when appellant fired
causing injury on his chest and repeated the fire causing injury
on his leg.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, since a dispute had arisen with regard to rate of straw
which the appellant intended to purchase. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1099 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
that though it is alleged that appellant fired causing firearm
injury on chest of Jai Shankar, but then the injury report belies
the said allegation as no injury on chest of Jai Shankar is
recorded, but then it is fairly submitted that Jai Shankar received
firearm injury on his leg.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal and submits that appellant has antecedent of two cases
and specific allegation against him is of firing causing injury to
Jai Shankar. It is next submitted that if privilege of regular bail
is granted, the appellant may abscond. It is also submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that informant, Shivam, Manu and Jai Shankar
received firearm injury, which amply demonstrates the mindset
of the accused persons.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…