Patna High Court
Dharmendra DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The allegations against the appellant do not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and he is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellant, Dharmendra Das, was charged under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC provisions for allegedly abusing and threatening the complainant, Sunaina Devi, on caste grounds. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected his application for anticipatory bail. On appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Patna High Court examined the nature of the alleged abuse, the clean antecedent of the appellant, and the fact that the main thrust of the case was against a co‑accused. The Court held that the alleged conduct did not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST Act and that the appellant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Sections 438 and 482 of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's alleged conduct attracts the rigours of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act and the relevant provisions of the CrPC.
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(2), 352, 76
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act
- caste based violence
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1622 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2024 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Dharmendra Das S/o Devan Das R/o Village- Manoharpur, P.S.- Harlakhi,
District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Slunaina Devi W/o Sushil Ram R/o Village- Harlakhi, P.S.- Manoharpur,
District- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Although the
notice has been validly served upon respondent No.2, there is no
representation on his behalf.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
10.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-
cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani, in A.B.P. No. 07 of
2025 in connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 279 of 2024,
registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 76, 3(5) of the
B.N.S. read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1622 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been
rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant,
namely, Sunaina Devi, alleged that Dharmendra Das (appellant)
along with co-accused Amarnath Yadav, Santosh Mandal came
to her house and started abusing her family members by taking
caste name and threatened that they will not let them live in the
village. It is further alleged that on 20.10.2024, at about 8:00
P.M., co-accused Amar Yadav came and started assaulting the
informant and her family member Nirmla Devi. After hearing
hulla, the nearby villagers came and saved both of them. It is
also alleged that after one day of occurrence, all the accused
persons came to the house of the informant and threatened her
for dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant bears clean antecedent and general
and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused
persons including this appellant. It has further been submitted
that there is a delay of four days in filing the present F.I.R.,
without giving any plausible reason for the same. He further
submits that from a bare perusal of an F.I.R., the same appears
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1622 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
to be a concocted story. The specific allegation is levelled
against the co-accused Amar Yadav. As regards allegation of
abuse with the caste name attracting the rigours of SC & ST Act
is concerned, it is not committed in a public place nor any
person has been named to be present at the place of occurrence
when the alleged offence of abuse was being committed. He
further submits that no case, as alleged in the F.I.R, attracting
rigours of SC & ST Act is made out against the appellant.
Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant
may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the appellant.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that the appellant bears clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that the main thrust of
allegation is against the co-accused Amar Yadav and the
allegation does not come under the purview of SC/ST Act, let
the above named appellant in the event of his arrest/surrender
within a period of six weeks be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1622 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
Sessions Judge-1st-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani,
in connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 279 of 2024, subject
to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 10.02.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellant is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…