Patna High Court
OM BHARTIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail cannot be granted as cognizance has been taken and the appellant’s criminal antecedents warrant denial.
Summary
Om Bharti appealed to the Patna High Court against the order of the District and Additional Sessions Judge rejecting his anticipatory bail application in a case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code (sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 34) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (section 3(i)(r)). The State argued that anticipatory bail was not maintainable because the trial court had already taken cognizance of the SC/ST Act offences and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar. The State also highlighted the appellant’s two prior criminal antecedents. The High Court, relying on the Bachu Das precedent and the appellant’s criminal record, held that the anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the trial court has already taken cognizance of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Whether the appellant’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
- Applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar to the present bail application
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- criminal antecedents
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1497 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2023 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
OM BHARTI S/O Dev Narayan Rai Resident Of Village- Runnisaidpur, Ward
No. 09, P.s.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mohan Ram S/O Jageswar Ram R/O Vill.- Kundal, P.s.- Mahindwara, Dist.-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act,
Sitamarhi in a case registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(i)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned Spl.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State that the prayer for grant of pre-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1497 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/2
arrest bail to the appellant is not maintainable as cognizance has
already been taken by the learned trial court for the offences
punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this regard, reliance is placed
upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case
of Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014)
3 SCC 471. It is further submitted that appellant has got two
criminal antecedents.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions,
pronouncement of law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bachu Das (supra) and criminal antecedents of
the appellant, appellant’s prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail is
rejected and this appeal stands dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.