Patna High Court
BIRENDRA CHAUDHARYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail is maintainable and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting it is set aside.
Summary
The complainant, a daily labourer, alleged that the appellant, Birendra Chaudhary, assaulted him, used caste-based slurs, and stole money while refusing to pay wages, invoking Sections 379 and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined whether the SC/ST Act provisions were applicable and whether anticipatory bail could be granted despite the serious allegations. Noting that the dispute stemmed from a wage issue and the appellant's willingness to pay Rs.10,000 to the complainant, the Court held the anticipatory bail application maintainable. It set aside the lower court’s order, granted bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, and imposed conditions including payment of the amount to the complainant.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in a case involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within the ambit of Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant’s willingness to pay compensation influences the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- theft
- assault
- bail conditions
- IPC
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1119 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1074 Year-2023 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
District- Munger
======================================================
Birendra Chaudhary S/O Late Sumran Chaudhary R/O Vill - Bahadur Nagar
Shivram Chaudhary Tola, Kutlupur, P.S.- Mufasil, Dist- Munger
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. School Paswan S/o Late Ramchandra Paswan R/o vill - Bahadur Nagar tirasi
Tola, Kutlupur, Diyara, P.s.- Mufassil, Distt.- Munger
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
For the Res No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Spl. P.P. for the State including the learned counsel for the
informant.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated
4.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-
cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Munger in ABA No. 1764 of
2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1074 of 2023 for the
offence under Sections 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act, by which
the prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail was rejected.
3. The complainant, School Paswan, filed a complaint
on 05.10.2023 alleging that he worked for 15 days as a daily
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1119 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
laborer in the field of Birendra Choudhary (the appellant). When
he went to the appellant’s house to demand his wages of Rs.
6,000/-, the appellant allegedly abused him using caste-based
slurs. On 17.09.2023, while returning from work around 5:00
P.M., the appellant, along with five others, allegedly restrained
the complainant, abused him in filthy language, physically
assaulted him, and took Rs. 3,100/- from his pocket.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and no offence
under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case and
therefore the application of the anticipatory bail is maintainable.
He further submits that the appellant, without accepting his
guilt, is ready to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the State and the learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
of the appellants.
6. From the reading of the entire complaint, it appears
that the dispute has arisen on account of non-payment of wages.
7. In these circumstances and taking note of the
willingness of the appellant to make a payment to the
complainant, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is
held to be maintainable and the same stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1119 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
8. Accordingly, the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Munger in ABA No. 1764 of 2024 arising out of
Complaint Case No. 1074 of 2023 is hereby set aside.
9. Let the appellant, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned concerned Court where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case
No. 1074 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section
482(2) of the BNSS and with a further condition that:-
(I). At the time of furnishing bail bonds, the
appellant shall produce a demand draft of Rs. 10,000/-
in favor of the complainant. After verification of the
genuineness of the demand draft, the learned Court
below shall accept the bail bonds of the appellant; in
the event the demand draft is found not to be genuine,
the Court shall pass such appropriate orders as
deemed fit.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…