Patna High Court
Mirdul Dubey @ Mirdul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that, in the absence of any allegation of caste-based abuse and given the accidental nature of the death, the charge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act does not apply to the appellant, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
Mirdul Dubey was charged under Section 106 of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the death of the informant's son, who allegedly electrocuted himself while working in a field. The appellant contended that he had no role in the accident and that no caste-based abuse occurred, rendering the SC/ST Act charge untenable. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant opposed the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail. The Patna High Court examined the factual matrix, noting the lack of any allegation of caste insult and the accidental nature of the death, and held that the charge under the SC/ST Act could not stand against the appellant. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court’s order rejecting bail and directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the alleged victim’s death is accidental and no caste insult is alleged?
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the pending charges under Section 106 of the B.N.S. and the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 106
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- accidental death
- criminal procedure
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1485 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- Dehri Mufassil District- Rohtas
======================================================
Mirdul Dubey @ Mirdul Kumar S/o Shobh Nath Dubey R/o Village -
Durgapur, P.S. - Dihari, Distt .- Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ganauri Ram S/o Late Tegu Ram R/o Village - Durgapur, P.S. - Dihari,
Distt .- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 30.03.2026 passed in a case registered for the offence
punishable under Section 106 of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail of this appellant has been rejected.
3. As per prosecution case, on 25.06.2026 at about
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1485 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
12 PM, son of informant, namely Sudhir Ram, was taken by
Mridual Dubey to work as a laborer in the fields. At about 2
PM, while removing soil from a boring chamber, his son’s foot
slipped and he fell onto an electric wire due to which he got
electrocuted.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is
apparent that son of informant accidentally got electrocuted
while removing soil and this appellant played no role. There is
absolutely no allegation that this appellant abused the informant
by caste name and as such, no case under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out
against this appellant.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State
and learned counsel appearing for the informant/Respondent
No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the appellant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and general and omnibus nature of accusation, this appeal is
allowed and the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Rohtas at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1485 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
Sasaram in connection with Dehri (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 110
of 2025 is hereby set aside with respect to this appellant only.
7. Accordingly, let the appellant, named above, in the
event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Rohtas at
Sasaram in connection with Dehri (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 110
of 2025.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.