Patna High Court
Lalit Kumar @ Munna SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court's refusal and granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the appellants' criminal antecedents.
Summary
The appellants, Lalit Kumar and Jitendra Kumar, were charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST Act for allegedly demolishing a hut, looting property, and threatening a woman with caste-based abuse in a land dispute. They sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the nature of the allegations, the relevance of the land dispute, and the appellants' criminal antecedents. It held that the trial court erred in refusing bail and granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the appellants' prior convictions. The order of the trial court was set aside, and the appellate court directed the trial court to confirm or cancel the bail bonds based on the antecedent check.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case involving alleged caste‑based abuse and land dispute.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing anticipatory bail to the appellants.
- Whether the appellants' prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126, 303(2), 324(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.129 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2025 Thana- DEOKUND District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Lalit Kumar @ Munna Sharma S/O Late Yogendra Sharma Resident of
Village- Bandhwa, P.S- Deokund, Distt- Aurangabad.
2. Jitendra Kumar @ Mantu Sharma S/O Late Dilip Sharma Resident of
Village- Bandhwa, P.S- Deokund, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajraniya Devi, W/o Ramvijay Rajvanshi, Resident of Village Bandhwa,
P.S- Deokund, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
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 03.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 2756 of 2025 passed by
the learned 1st District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge (SC/ST, Children & NDPS Act), Aurangabad in
connection with Deokund P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 registered
under Sections 126, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 303(2), 324(5), 74 and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.129 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have antecedent of two cases
and the informant alleges that on 05.12.2025 she came on her
land along with her husband when she saw that hut and house
on the land was demolished and even household articles were
looted along with two goats. Further, a day before she was
threatened by the appellants to leave the land. It is next alleged
that appellants have antecedent and are land grabbers. Further,
when she was coming back, the appellants intercepted her and
abused by taking caste name and threatened with an iron rod to
leave the land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is next submitted that as far as allegation of
abuse is concerned, the same is general and omnibus in nature
i.e. no specific allegation is alleged against the appellants of
hurling abuse. It is also submitted that there is no allegation of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.129 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
assault though informant alleges that appellants threatened with
an iron rod and asked her to leave the land. It is further
submitted that since a land dispute is going on in between the
parties, as such, the instant false case came to be instituted. It is
next submitted that the land belongs to the appellants and it is
the side of the informant who is trying to usurp the land. It is
also submitted that from perusal of Annexure-3 to the memo of
appeal, it would manifest that Title Suit No. 129/95/17/99 was
instituted from the side of the appellants in which the side of the
informant were defendants. It is further submitted that the suit
was decreed in favour of the side of the appellants and thereafter
the land was mutated in the name of the appellants and
thereafter the disturbance from the side of the informant started.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail but then are not in a position to rebut
Annexure-3 to the memo of appeal.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant submits that appellants have not approached
this Court with clean hands as they have suppressed their
criminal antecedent.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.129 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
9. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the appellants and if
it is found that appellants have antecedent of more than two
cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail bonds shall
be cancelled but if it is found on verification that appellants
have antecedent of only two cases in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail bonds shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…