Patna High Court
Shaukat RezaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court’s order.
Summary
The appellant, Shaukat Reza, sought anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after being charged with offences under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that on 20 January 2025 the appellant entered the house of the second opposite party, demanded an Aadhaar card, misbehaved, and fled when confronted, leading to charges of assault and caste-based harassment. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry, that his mobile phone was missing, and that the FIR did not allege any caste slur. The State opposed bail, highlighting the appellant’s alleged habit of criminality, noting his involvement in seven other cases. After considering the allegations and the appellant’s criminal antecedent, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the lower court’s order denying bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant’s prior criminal antecedent justifies the denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352, 74
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste atrocities
- criminal antecedent
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- political rivalry
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1508 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- KADWA District- Katihar
======================================================
Shaukat Reza S/o Akhter Husain R/o Vill.- Shahnagar/Kujibana, P.O.- Kurela
Bhobra, P.S.- Kadwa, Distt.- Katihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sulochna Devi W/o Chela Mahaldar R/o Vill.- Jaja, P.S.- Kadwa, Distt.-
Katihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Md. Helal Ahmad
For the State : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
For the O. P. No. 2 : Ms. Mandira Sau
Ms. Shamali Kumari
Ms. Ayushi Gupta
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel
for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. An order, dated 02.04.2025, passed by learned 1st District
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST,
Katihar, in A.B.P. No. 01 of 2025, is under challenge in
the present appeal preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the anticipatory bail
application of the appellant, in connection with Kadwa
Police Station Case No. 15 of 2025 registered for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1508 of 2025(6) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/
329(4)/74/352/351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 20.01.2025, at about 9 PM, the appellant
reached the house of the Opposite Party No. 2 and told
her husband to show aadhar card and when the husband
of Opposite Party No. 2 went inside the house to bring
aadhar card, the appellant took the mobile number of the
Opposite Party No. 2 and started misbehaving with her.
When the Opposite Party No. 2 started making noise, the
neighbours gathered there and caught hold the appellant,
but the appellant, on gun point, fled away.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the appellant is innocent and has not
committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has
falsely been implicated in this case due to political rivalry.
The fact that the mobile phone of the appellant was
missing and he came to know that his mobile phone was
with the informant and he had gone to the house of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1508 of 2025(6) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
Opposite Party No. 2 for demanding his mobile phone.
He further submits that there is no allegation in the First
Information Report that the appellant abused the Opposite
Party No. 2 by taking her caste name.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Additional Public
Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail
and submit that the appellant is a habitual offender
inasmuch as he is accused in seven other criminal cases.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the materials on record, particularly the
criminal antecedent of the appellant, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the order, dated
02.04.2025, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar, in A.B.P. No.
01 of 2025, is hereby affirmed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.