Patna High Court
Rinki DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed, the lower court’s order denying anticipatory bail is set aside, and bail is granted to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, members of a family involved in a land dispute, were charged with multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting a land broker and seizing his property. Their anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, prompting an appeal. During the hearing, the appellants sought to withdraw the appeal for two of the accused, which the court permitted. The High Court examined the factual matrix, noting the dispute between the parties and the alleged involvement of the female family members, and concluded that the lower court’s denial of bail was untenable. Consequently, the order dated 23.02.2026 was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds and sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the denial of anticipatory bail by the lower court was justified in view of the facts and the nature of the offences.
- Whether the allegations against the appellants under the IPC and the SC/ST Act warrant the grant of bail.
- Whether the appeal should be allowed and the lower court's order set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- assault
- SC/ST Act
- IPC
- bail
- high court
- appeal
- withdrawal of appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1149 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2026 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Rinki Devi W/O Viru Sharma Resident of Village- Paltaniya P. S- Rautara
,District - Katihar
2. Pinki Devi Wife of-Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Sharma Resident of Village-
Hirdayganj, P.S. Sahayak, District- Katihar
3. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Sharma Son of- Late Ramjatan Sharma Resident
of Village- Hirdayganj, P.S. Sahayak, District- Katihar
4. Srijal Kumar Son of. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Sharma Resident of
Village- Hirdayganj, P.S. Sahayak, District- Katihar
5. Srishti Devi @ Shrishti Kumari Daughter of- Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra
Sharma Resident of Village- Hirdayganj, P.S. Sahayak, District- Katihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Paswan Son of Vishwabhar Paswan Resident of Village-Hirdayganj
Ward No. 06, P.S. Sahayak, District-Katihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bimal Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
Mr.Praveen Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks
permission to withdraw the instant appeal with respect to
appellant no.3, Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Sharma and appellant
no.4, Srijal Kumar, who were arrested.
3. Permission is accorded.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1149 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/5
4. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with respect to appellant no.3, Jitendra Kumar @
Jitendra Sharma and appellant no.4, Srijal Kumar.
5. The appellants no.1, 2 and 5 have challenged the
order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Katihar in connection with ABA No.07 of 2026 arising out
of Katihar Town (Sahayak) P. S. Case No.17 of 2026, instituted
for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 127(2), 118(1),
109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5), 117(2) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been
rejected.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant nos.1 and 5 are persons with
clean antecedent and appellant no.2 has antecedent of one case
and are women. It is next submitted that informant alleges that
on 12.01.2026 at 2.00 P.M., he had gone to see the measurement
of the land of Saryug Sharma when the accused persons
including the appellants intercepted and abused him by taking
caste name, thereafter Jitendra caught the collar of the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1149 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/5
and started assaulting, thereafter Pinki Devi assaulted the
informant by dabiya causing injury on head. Further, Jitnedra
assaulted him by an iron rod causing injury on head, thereafter
Pinki, Srijal Kumar and Siddhu Kumar also assaulted the
informant with fist and leg and Pinki snatched gold chain of the
informant while Jitendra Sharma snatched Rs.2,000/-.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that side of the appellants are having dispute
with Saryug Sharma, who is own brother Jitendra Sharma and
informant is a land broker and Saryug Sharma had contacted the
informant for selling the land when parties are in jointness. It is
further submitted that on the date of measurement, an altercation
took place, when both sides assaulted each other. It is also
submitted that informant being stranger to the family was
present when the measurement was being done of the land in
dispute, his presence at the place of occurrence amply
demonstrates his interest in the property. It is further submitted
that an altercation took place in between Jitendra and Saryug
and both sides assaulted each other. It is also submitted that
informant might have got assaulted in the occurrence from the
side of Saryug Sharma, but then, he took the same as an
opportunity to implicate the side of the appellants including
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1149 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
4/5
female members. It is also submitted that female members of
the family have been implicated only with a view to coerce the
male members into submission.
8. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal, but then, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant is not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
Jitendra and Saryug are brothers and are having dispute relating
to land and informant is a land broker whose presence at the
time of measurement was not required.
9. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 23.02.2026 is set-aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. The appellants, above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Katihar in
connection with ABA No.07 of 2026 arising out of Katihar
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1149 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
5/5
Town (Sahayak) P. S. Case No.17 of 2026, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…