Patna High Court
Abhimanyu Pathak @ Bittu Kumar Pathak @ Piyush Kumar PathakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and bail is granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, members of the Pathak family, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several provisions of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes for allegedly assaulting an informant and his family during a Shradh ceremony on 16‑12‑2024. The prosecution alleged that the accused used weapons, robbed the victim of cash and jewellery, and caused serious injuries, while the defence argued that the injuries were simple, the incident was spontaneous, and there was a case‑and‑counter‑case with no pre‑meditation. The trial judge had rejected the appellants’ prayer for anticipatory bail. On appeal, the Patna High Court considered the clean antecedent of the accused, the nature of the injuries, the lack of public view, and the delay in filing the FIR. Applying the principles of Section 482(2) of the CrPC and the discretion under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order denying anticipatory bail, directing that bail be granted on the stipulated bond and surety conditions. The decision underscores the Court’s cautious approach in granting bail where the alleged offences are not of a pre‑meditated or gravely violent nature.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and the Bihar Negotiable Statutes.
- Whether the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.) — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(1), 352, 76
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste atrocities
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- Section 14A
- Bihar law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1147 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2024 Thana- DAUDPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Abhimanyu Pathak @ Bittu Kumar Pathak @ Piyush Kumar Pathak Son of
Rajkishore Pathak Resident of Vill-Dhrampura, P.O.- Dhrampura, P.S.-
Daudpur, Dist.- Saran.
2. Sonu Pathak @ Ashwinee Kumar Pathak son of Late Dinanath Pathak
Resident of Vill-Dhrampura, P.O.- Dhrampura, P.S.-Daudpur, Dist.- Saran.
3. Rajkishore Pathak son of Late Kamla Pathak Resident of Vill-Dhrampura,
P.O.- Dhrampura, P.S.-Daudpur, Dist.- Saran.
4. Nandkishore Pathak son of Late Kamla Pathak Resident of Vill-Dhrampura,
P.O.- Dhrampura, P.S.-Daudpur, Dist.- Saran.
5. Kaushal Kishore Pathak son of Late Kamla Pathak Resident of Vill-
Dhrampura, P.O.- Dhrampura, P.S.-Daudpur, Dist.- Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pradip Kumar Ram son of Ganesh Ram Resident of Vill-Dhrampura,
Panchayat -Bareja, Ward no. 12, P.O.- Dhrampura, P.S.-Daudpur, Dist.-
Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivesh Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Although vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent
No.2, there is no representation on his behalf.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1147 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/5
15.01.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Saran, in A.B.P. No. 4546/2024 arising out of Daudpur
P.S. Case No. 281 of 2024 registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109, 76, 303(2), 352, 351(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S.
and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants has
been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 16.12.2024 at
around 9 to 10 PM, the informant had gone to attend Shradh
Rituals, no sooner, he occupied a chair, Abhimanyu Pathak
(appellant no.1) came and started abusing and shouting at him
and said that how could he sit on a chair. When the informant
opposed, he was dragged by his collar, chased away and
slapped. The appellants no. 4 and 5, co-accused Raj Kishore and
six unknown persons variously armed, came at the door of the
informant entered into his house and started abusing the
informant and misbehaved with his family members and
dragged the informant’s wife, sister, mother and daughter
catching hold of their hair and tore their clothes. On hulla, when
Dheeraj Kumar Manjhi and Dhananjay Kumar came to their
rescue, Abhimanyu Pathak (appellant no.1), Sonu Pathak
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1147 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/5
(appellant no.2) and co-accused, Ghuman Pathak assaulted on
the head of Dheeraj Kumar with farsa with intention to kill, due
to which he sustained head injury and Nand Kishore Pathak
(appellant no.4) snatched gold chain from his neck and assaulted
with farsa causing serious injury on his left hand. Thereafter,
Kaushal Kishore Pathak (appellant no.5) snatched Rs.
2,89,000/- from his bag and kicked on the private part of
Dheeraj Manjhi as a result of which he sustained injury and fell
unconscious on the ground.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and
have not committed any offence. It is further submitted that
occurrence took place suddenly on the issue of eating in the
Shradh Ceremony. He further submits that there is case and
counter case between the parties, although appellants no.1, 2
and co-accused Ghuman Pathak are alleged to have assaulted by
means of farsa on Dheeraj Kumar, but the injury report of
Dheeraj Kumar suggests that he has received simple injuries by
means of hard and blunt substance, while Nand Kishore Pathak
(appellant no.4) who is specifically alleged to have assaulted on
the head of the informant, the injury report suggests that injury
on head is simple in nature, while injury no.2 on the wrist- joint
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1147 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
4/5
is grievous in nature, which is not attributed to any of the
accused persons. The alleged abuse having not taken place
within the public view and the ingredients of Section 76 of the
B.N.S. is not fulfilled and the allegation with respect to Section
303(2) of B.N.S. appears to be ornamental in nature. It is further
submitted that there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR.
Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellants
may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the appellants and submitted that the appellants are actively
involved in the present occurrence.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that the appellants bear clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that there is case and counter
case between the parties and the occurrence took place suddenly
without any premeditation to kill and appellant no.4 (Nand
Kishroe Pathak) is alleged to have assaulted by means of farsa
(sharp cutting weapon), the injuries on the head of the informant
is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance, the
alleged abuse having not taken place within public view, let the
above named appellants, in the event of their arrest/surrender
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1147 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
5/5
within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saran, in connection with Daudpur
P.S. Case No. 281 of 2024 subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 15.01.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.