Patna High Court
Mohit Kumar @ Mohit SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the appeal is maintainable and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appeal was filed by Mohit Kumar and Rohit Kumar against the order of the Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, Muzaffarpur which had denied them anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged murder and offences under the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused lured the deceased, who was later found dead with grievous injuries, and that they had abused the informant on caste grounds. The appellants contended they were falsely implicated, had no role in the murder, and only verbally abused the informant, maintaining clean antecedents. The court examined whether the allegations attracted provisions of the SC/ST Act and whether anticipatory bail was maintainable. Finding that the FIR did not show a cognizable offence against the informant’s caste and that the appeal was maintainable, the court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The judgment emphasized that its observations were prima facie and limited to bail considerations.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in the present circumstances
- Whether the appellants can be granted anticipatory bail despite the lower court’s rejection
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 238, 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- criminal procedure
- bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1584 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2025 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Mohit Kumar @ Mohit Sahni S/O Ram Kishore sahni Resident of Village -
Bhusra, P.S- Gaighat,Dist- Muzaffarpur
2. Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Sahni S/o Ramkishor Sahni Resident of Village
Bhusra, P.S.-Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Asheshwar Ram S/o Late Janak Ram Resident of Village-Locha, P.S.-
Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present memo of appeal has been preferred
against the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, Muzaffarpur in
ABP No. 4408 of 2025 in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case
No. 247 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1584 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/4
anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the appellants are
alleged to have called the deceased from his house and taken
him away before the occurrence. Subsequently, the dead body of
the deceased was recovered in a brutally injured condition with
grievous injuries on different parts of the body. It has further
been alleged that when the informant approached the accused
persons, they abused him by taking the name of his caste and
also intimidated him. The prosecution further alleges that the
deceased had previous dealings with the accused persons in
relation to illegal liquor business.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have falsely been implicated in this case and no
offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is made out.
Therefore, the present appeal seeking anticipatory bail is
maintainable. He further submits that the only role assigned to
the appellants is that of abusing the informant. The appellants
have clean antecedents.
5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the appellants.
6. From a reading of the entire FIR, it does not appear
that any offence has been committed against the informant and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1584 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/4
his family members on the ground that they are members of the
SC/ST community. Prima facie, the allegations under the
provisions of the SC/ST Act do not appear to be attracted.
7. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court,
the present appeal seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable.
8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to
extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Accordingly, the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2026 passed
by the learned Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, Muzaffarpur
in ABP No. 4408 of 2025 in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case
No. 247 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
9. Let the appellants, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
Court in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. It is made clear that any observation made herein
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1584 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
4/4
is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.