Patna High Court
Mantu RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and bail is granted to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, Mantu Ray and co‑accused, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting informant Mithilesh Kumar Sah and using caste‑based slurs during a dispute over two mahua trees. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the informant with a sickle, causing a neck injury, and that caste‑based abuse was uttered in the presence of others. The appellants contended that the injury was minor, caused by a blunt object, and that the alleged abuse did not occur in a public place nor meet the criteria of the SC/ST Act. The Special Judge had rejected their anticipatory bail application, but the High Court, after considering the clean antecedents of the appellants and the lack of corroboration between the injury report and the FIR, held that the allegations did not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail, and directed that bail be granted subject to standard conditions under the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse and assault fall within the purview of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in view of the nature of the alleged offences and the evidence on record.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- assault
- property dispute
- bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1770 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2025 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Mantu Ray S/o- Teras Ray Village- Sendaur Ps- Ekma Dist- Saran at Chapra
2. Rukmina Devi @ Rukmini Devi W/o- Teras Ray Village- Sendaur Ps- Ekma
Dist- Saran at Chapra
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Mithelesh Kumar Sah S/o- Lal Bihari Sah Village- Sendaur Ps- Ekma Dist-
Saran at Chapra
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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
25.03.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST,
Saran at Chapra, in A.B.P. No. 764 of 2025 in connection with
Ekma P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025, registered under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 118(1) 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S read with
Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1770 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, two mahua trees of
the informant, namely, Mithilesh Kumar Sah are situated near
the house of Teras Ray (co-villager) and one of which had dried
up. On 07.01.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., the informant was
talking to a labourer and at that very moment, Teras Rai came
and asked the informant to cut down both the trees but the
informant denied to cut both the trees upon which Teras Rai
started abusing him by taking his caste name. On being
protested, Mantu Rai (appellant) along with other co-accused
persons, namely, Nisha Devi, Rukmini Devi, Sita Kunwar,
Rinku Devi came with weapons. It is further alleged that Mantu
Rai (appellant no. 1) hit the informant by means of sickle on his
head with an intention to kill him, but somehow informant
saved himself and due to which he got cut injury on his neck.
On hulla, the villagers gathered and took the informant to Ekma
Hospital from there he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Chapra,
for further treatment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants bear clean antecedent and are
innocent. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1770 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
bone of contention and the dispute is with respect to two mahua
trees which is claimed by both of the parties. Although the
appellant no. 1 is alleged to have assaulted by means of tangi on
the head of the informant but the injury report as has been
mentioned in the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2025 would
suggest that the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance (HBS) and the injury report is not corroborated
by the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R.. 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 appellants.
Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellants
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 appellants bear clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that the dispute primarily
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1770 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
between the parties is due to mahua trees and the injury report
has not been corroborated by the allegations as levelled in the
F.I.R., and the allegation does not come under the purview of
SC/ST Act, let the above named appellants in the event of their
arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST, Saran at Chapra, in
connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025, 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 25.03.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…