Patna High Court
Sanjay PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, a group of persons accused under several IPC offences and Section 3(2)V of the SC/ST Act, appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They argued that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, that the informant’s motive was to usurp land, and that the accusations of caste‑based abuse and assault were unfounded. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offences were serious and fell within the ambit of the SC/ST Act. The Court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of specific allegations against the appellants, and the precedent where similar co‑accused were granted anticipatory bail. It held that the refusal of bail was not justified and, under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, ordered the release of the appellants on anticipatory bail with prescribed conditions, setting aside the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged motive of the informant affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the allegations of caste‑based abuse and assault are sufficiently substantiated to deny bail.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing bail in violation of the principles under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 323, 341, 354(B), 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)V
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- land dispute
- caste based violence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1774 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2020 Thana- LUTUA District- Gaya
============================================================
1. Sanjay Prasad Son of Late Pragash Mahto @ Pragash Singh village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
2. Krishnadeo Prasad @ Krishna Prasad son of Late Pragash Mahto @ Pragash Singh
village -Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
3. Priyanshu @ Heera Prasad @ Priye Ranjan Son of Surendra Prasad @ Surendra
Singh village -Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
4. Ananad Prasad @ Anand Kumar son of Late Vijay Prasad village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
5. Chhotu Prasad @ Nibhit Kumar son of Late Vijay Prasad village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
6. Dayanand Prasad @ Dayanand Kumar son of krishnadeo Prasad village
-Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
7. Pramanand Prasad @ Pramanand Kumar son of Krishnadeo Prasad village
-Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
8. Golu Prasad @ Satyanand Kumar son of Krishnadeo Prasad village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
9. Raushan Prasad @ Raushan Raj Son of Sanjay Prasad village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
10. Sumitra Devi Wife of Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Singh village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
11. Manju Devi Wife of Sanjay Prasad village -Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
12. Kiran Devi wife of Late Vijay Prasad village -Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
13. Ramrati Devi @ Ramoti Devi Wife of Krishnadeo Prasad village -Shankarpur PS
-Lutua Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanti Devi wife of Yogendra Bhuiyan village -Shankarpur PS -Lutua Dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
============================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 14-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms Usha Kumari No. 1.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1774 of 2025(4) dt.14-05-2026
2/4
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 05-3-2025 in A.B.P. No. 55 of 2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya in
connection with Lutua P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323,
354(B), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section
3(2)V of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellant No. 1, 3 and 4 have antecedent of three cases,
appellant no.2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have antecedent of one case and
appellant no.10 to 13 are persons with clean antecedent.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits
that similarly situated co-accused Rakesh Kumar along with two
others had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1775 of 2025. It is submitted that in
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1775 of 2025, notices were issued on the
informant and the informant despite receiving notice, chose not
appear and contest. It is thus submitted that it appears that the
informant is not interested in pursing the case as such no useful
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1774 of 2025(4) dt.14-05-2026
3/4
purpose would be served by issuing notice to the informant. It is
also submitted that the court granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail to Rakesh Kumar and two others after
considering the case in detail and on merits. It is further
submitted that informant alleges that on 10-3-2024 at about 2
A.M., she was constructing a brick house below a mountain as
she was not having any land, when all the accused persons
including the appellants came and claimed that the land belongs
to them and thereafter the accused persons called the police,
who ordered to stop the work, thereafter Surendra Prasad called
the Ranger and destroyed the brick wall and his family damaged
the articles lying there and also abused by taking caste name,
thereafter Rakesh, who is an army man, pulled the hand of the
informant’s daughter causing pain and abused by taking caste
name.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it
would manifest that the date of occurrence is 10-3-2024 and the
FIR came to be instituted on 13-3-2024, i.e., after a delay of
three days without any plausible explanation. It is also
submitted that informant was trying to usurp the land of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1774 of 2025(4) dt.14-05-2026
4/4
appellants for constructing her house, which was objected and
thereafter the present false case came to be instituted. It is
further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, it would manifest that no specific allegation of abuse
and assault is alleged against the appellants.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned trial court 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.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.