Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mamtaz Khan @ Mumtaz KhanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The appeal is partly allowed; anticipatory bail is granted to appellants 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 8, but denied to appellant 4.

Summary

The appellants appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the Special Judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged caste‑based assault, robbery and humiliation of the informant. The FIR alleged that several of the accused, led by Mumtaz Khan, attacked the informant’s house on 13‑04‑2022, causing bodily injuries, theft of jewellery and money, and forced disrobement. The appellants argued that the informant failed to appear despite notice, that the allegations were vague and not made in public view, and that the evidence did not justify denial of bail. The State opposed the bail, invoking the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court’s order for appellants 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 8, directing that they be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bond and sureties, but rejected bail for appellant 4 (Neyaz Khan). The order was issued under the inherent powers of the court under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the alleged offences.
  • Whether the FIR and the informant’s non‑appearance constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
  • Whether the court may grant bail to some accused while denying it to others based on the nature of allegations and antecedents.
  • Application of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act and Section 482(2) of the CrPC in granting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • caste based violence
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • partial relief
  • IPC offences
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.175 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Mamtaz Khan @ Mumtaz Khan Son of Lal Khan Resident of Village - Lala
                  Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
           2.    Azad Khan Son of Mumtaz Khan Resident of Village - Lala Chapra, Police
                 Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
           3.    Bachu Khan @ Bacha Khan Son of Asin Khan @ Yasin Khan Resident of
                 Village - Lala Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
           4.    Neyaz Khan @ Md. Neyaz Khan Son of Bachu Khan @ Bacha Khan
                 Resident of Village - Lala Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East
                 Champaran
           5.    Seeraj Khan @ Sheraj Khan Son of Bachu Khan @ Bacha Khan Resident of
                 Village - Lala Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
           6.    Laddu Khan @ Arbaz Khan Son of Sanaullah Khan Resident of Village -
                 Lala Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
           7.    Nejam Khan @ Naj Khan Son of Akhar Khan Resident of Village - Lala
                 Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
           8.    Ekaram Kha @ Ekram Khan Son of Asin Khan @ Yasin Khan Resident of
                 Village - Lala Chapra, Police Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran

                                                                                   ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sabita Devi Wife of Devendra Das Resident of Village - Lala Chapra, Police
                 Station - Kesariya, District - East Champaran

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Binay Krishna
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   28-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

                   Spl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the informant.

                                2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

                   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
                                             2/4




          Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST

          Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide

          order dated 29.10.2024 in A.B.P. No.4328/2024, passed by the

          learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, East Chmaparan at

          Motihari in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case No.101/2024.

          registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,

          341, 323, 380, 452, 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as

          Sections 3(1)(S), 3(1)(W), 3(1)(1), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(r) of

          the Act.

                       3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          appellant no.1, 3 and 8 have antecedent of two cases, appellant

          no.4, 5, 6 and 7 have antecedent of one case and appellant no.2

          is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that

          accused persons including the appellants on 13.04.2022 at 8

          P.M. came to her house and abused by taking caste name,

          further on instigation of Mumtaz, accused Neyaz assaulted her

          with lathi having knife, causing pain in the stomach, thereafter

          Tara Khan assaulted by rod causing injury on hand and fingers,

          further all accused assaulted her inside the house and Suvitra

          snatched her mangal-sutra while Azad took away Rs.16,000/-,

          further on orders of Mumtaz, accused Naaz khan and Seeraj

          dragged her outside the house and disrobed her, thereafter
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
                                             3/4




          Ekram and Laddu assaulted her by chappal and Mumtaz spat on

          her face and also acted inappropriately with Lalsa Devi and

          assaulted her by lathi, next alleges that reason for the occurrence

          is that Mumtaz and Laddu had assaulted her son on the pretext

          that he crossed their house on cycle, hence informant had gone

          to complain when present occurrence took place.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and

          contest. It is further submitted that appellants and informant are

          neighbour. It is next submitted that from perusal of the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same

          does not inspire confidence for the reason that it does not appear

          probable that informant with such precision and certainty could

          have alleged who assaulted whom, where and by what and who

          dragged whom. It is also submitted that allegation of abuse and

          assault is general and omnibus in nature, except against Neyaz

          and Tara Khan but then Tara Khan is not an appellant in the

          instant case. It is further submitted that even presuming what

          has been alleged is true without admitting then the occurrence is

          alleged to have taken place at the house of the informant, hence

          was not in public view. It is also submitted that this perhaps

          explains why informant despite receiving notice chooses not to
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
                                                        4/4




                     appear and contest.

                                  5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer

                     for anticipatory bail of the appellants.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the appeal is

                     allowed partly with respect to appellants.

                                  7. The order impugned is set aside partly with respect

                     to appellant no.1, 2, 3, 5, 6,7 and 8, accordingly, the appellants

                     above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a

                     period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail

                     on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)

                     each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction

                     of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor

                     court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the

                     conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

                                  8. The Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of

                     anticipatory bail to appellant no.4.

                                  9. The anticipatory bail application of appellant no.4,

                     namely, Neyaz Khan @ Md. Neyaz Khan is rejected.

                                  10. The appeal stands partly allowed.



                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.