Patna High Court
Dhiraj Kumar @ Dheeraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Dhiraj Kumar, was charged under multiple provisions of the Bihar National Security Act, 2023, the Arms Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly abusing an informant’s caste name and threatening her. He contended that the FIR contained only a generic allegation against all accused and no specific act attributable to him, asserting his innocence. The prosecution highlighted his three prior criminal antecedents, though he was on bail in those matters, and opposed bail. The High Court examined whether the refusal of regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act was justified given the lack of specific allegations and his antecedents. It concluded that bail could be granted with conditions ensuring his cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of his antecedents. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed, releasing the appellant on bail subject to stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act is justified in the present case.
- Whether the appellant can be said to have a specific charge under the SC/ST Act given the generic allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the appellant’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27
- Bihar National Security Act, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- regular bail
- criminal antecedent
- appeal
- Bihar High Court
- scheduled caste offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.184 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2025 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
======================================================
Dhiraj Kumar @ Dheeraj Kumar S/o Sintu Prasad R/o Mohalla- Kharkhura
Tarwana, P.S.- Delha, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Bindeswari Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Bindeswari Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Sadanand
Paswan, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 07.11.2025
passed by the learned Court of Spl. Judge Exclusive, SC/ST
(POA) Court, Gaya Ji in connection with CIS No. Bail Appl.
Spl. Act 3469 of 2025 arising out of Delha P.S. Case No. 136 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 16.06.2025 registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 25(1-b)a,
26 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, all the accused
persons including this appellant have abused the informant by
her caste name and threatened her for dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Although the appellant is named in the FIR but
from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific
allegation of assault or overt act attributed against the appellant
rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the
accused persons including this appellant. It appears from the
FIR itself that no member of public was present at the relevant
point of time of the alleged occurrence, thus, no case is made
out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. He further
submits that the police, after investigation, submitted charge
sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in custody since
23.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
appellant on the ground that the appellant carries three criminal
antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits that he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/4
is on bail in all the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, let the appellant, above named, 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
learned Court of Spl. Judge Exclusive, SC/ST (POA) Court,
Gaya Ji in connection with CIS No. Bail Appl. Spl. Act 3469 of
2025 arising out of Delha P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025, with other
following conditions:-
i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.