Patna High Court
Chandra Kant @ Chandra Kant KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any specific allegation of caste‑based abuse or assault against the appellant, anticipatory bail must be granted and the impugned order set aside.
Summary
The appellant, Chandra Kant, was implicated in a land fraud case where the informant alleged that he, along with others, defrauded him of about Rs. 49 lakh and later threatened him with caste‑based abuse. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated due to village politics and that the FIR contained no specific allegation of caste‑based insult or assault against him. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the FIR. The High Court examined whether the allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were sufficient to deny bail and found that the appellant’s name appeared only because he was present at the alleged incident, with no direct charge of caste abuse or assault. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, set aside the lower court’s order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific allegation against the appellant sufficient to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 319(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 61(2) BNS
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based abuse
- land fraud
- Section 438 CrPC
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.164 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-774 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Chandra Kant @ Chandra Kant Kumar S/o Harendra Prasad Ray Resident of
Village- Bhinnik Tola, P.S.- Sonepur, Dist.- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Uma Shankar Chaudhary S/o Late Mundrika Chaudhary R/o Village-
Harnichak, P.S.- Beur, Dist.- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 2.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated
12.12.2025 passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Chapra at Saran in connection with Sonepur
P.S. Case No. 774 of 2025 registered under Sections 319(2),
318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 61(2) BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)
(s), 3(2) (va) SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. The case of the prosecution, in short, as per the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
informant is that the informant and his wife were induced by
Sunita Kumari (alias Chiku) and Janvi Kumari to purchase land
in Sonepur through Anjani Kumar Singh. Initially, ₹16 lakhs
was paid, part of which was refunded when the deal faced
issues. Later, in conspiracy with Kamta Rai, they were shown
another land, and substantial payments were made—₹8 lakhs
via RTGS through Anjani and about ₹30 lakhs directly by the
informant’s wife to Kamta Rai. Further, ₹20 lakhs more was
demanded, out of which ₹10 lakhs was paid in cash and ₹1 lakh
online. After measurement and documentation, it was
discovered that the land had already been sold earlier and did
not belong to Kamta Rai. In total, about ₹49 lakhs was allegedly
defrauded. Although Kamta Rai issued a cheque of ₹30 lakhs, it
bounced. Later, when the informant confronted the accused,
they allegedly abused him using caste name and threatened to
kill him and his family and to implicate them in false cases.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case
due to dirty village politics and the biased intention. The entire
prosecution story is false and concocted. He further submits that
there is no specific allegation against the appellant and he has
no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant based
upon the allegation made in the F.I.R.
7. From the allegations levelled in the FIR, it does not
appear that there is any allegation against the appellant of
having hurled any caste based abuse. His name appears to have
come up simply because he happens to be present at the spot
where the occurrence is alleged to have happened. There is also
no allegation against the appellant of assaulting the informant.
Prima facie, no case of SC/ST is made out against the appellant
and also there is no specific allegation against the appellant of
assaulting the informant,
8. Considering all these above-mentioned aspects, let
the appellant, above named, in the event of his arrest to
surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days
from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory
bail on furnishing each of them bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Chapra at Saran in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No.
774 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
U T
Checking your session…