Sunita Devi @ Sunita KumariversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1152 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari W/o- Mithlesh Kumar Mahto R/v- Nakkipur
                 Ps- Korha Dist-Katihar

                                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Ashwini Kumar, Informant (Police Sub Inspector, Kolasi Camp, Korha)
                 Bihar

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Bhola Prasad
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Binay Krishna
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   07-05-2026                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the

                   learned Special P.P. for the State.

                               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 anticipatory bail vide

                   order dated 15.01.2026 in A.B.P. (SC/ST) No. 20 of 2025 passed

                   by the learned 1st District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

                   Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Katihar in connection with Korha

                   P.S. Case No. 167/2025, registered under Sections 126(2),

                   127(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 121, 132, 249, 262,

                   74, 352, 351(2), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 3(1)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1152 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026
                                             2/4




          (r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

                       3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that FIR

          was instituted by a police officer, as such notice is not required

          since informant is being represented by the learned APP. It is

          also submitted that Wakil Mahto along with four others had

          approached this court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.

          Appeal (SJ) No.4931 of 2025 in which the learned Special P.P.

          was directed to file counter affidavit by an order dated

          24.12.2025. It is submitted that counter affidavit in the said

          appeal has been received. It is next submitted that appellant is a

          person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the informant

          alleges that on 13.07.2025 at 1.10 A.M. he received an

          information that Chandan Kumar and accused of Jankinagar P.S.

          Case No.103/2025 is in the house of his sister (appellant) and

          her husband namely Mithilesh, accordingly, the house of the

          appellant was raided along with the informer but inmates of the

          house of raised an alarm of thieves when people gathered and

          Chandan fled, further Mithilesh with the help of his family

          members and local villagers took the informer and driver of the

          police vehicle inside the house and when police tried to release

          them, the accused persons created ruckus and abused the

          chowkidar and constable Navin by taking caste name, but
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1152 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026
                                             3/4




          somehow the force managed to release them, it is further alleged

          that accused persons assaulted the police force causing the

          injury to Rocky and occurrence was video-graphed.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant being sister of Chandan. It is further submitted that

          from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would

          manifest that no specific allegation is alleged against the

          appellant. It is also submitted that Chandan was not present in

          the house of the appellant but then some persons in plain cloths

          came to their house in the night at 2 A.M. when the inmates of

          the house mistook them for thieves as such an alarm was raised.

          It is also submitted that if the police intended to arrest Chandan,

          the force could have come after the sun had risen but then in the

          midst of night, plain cloth persons came, on account of which,

          the villagers even thought that they were thieves, hence the

          occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is also submitted

          that no doubt later the matter was pacified when police force in

          dress came but the instant false case came to be instituted only

          for the reason to make out a case when Chandan was not present

          at the house of the appellant. It is also submitted that in the

          counter affidavit which has been filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ)
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1152 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026
                                                          4/4




                       No.4931/2025, in the said counter affidavit also it is pleaded

                       that the allegations as alleged in the FIR is correct.

                                    5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the

                       appeal.

                                    6. Considering the submissions, the order impugned is

                       set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of her

                       arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of

                       receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on

                       furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with

                       two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

                       learned court below where the case is pending in connection

                       with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down

                       under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

                                    7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and

                       this appeal stands allowed.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T