Patna High Court
Manoj BhartiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant.
Summary
Manoj Bharti appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR alleged that he, along with others, threatened an informant over a no‑confidence motion and later fired shots at the informant’s house, though no one was injured and the informant was not present. The appellant argued that the informant was not an eyewitness, the allegations were vague, and he had a clean antecedent. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail but did not rebut the appellant’s claim of lack of eyewitness evidence. The Patna High Court set aside the lower court’s order, granting anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act is justified in view of the nature of the allegations and lack of eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- no confidence motion
- threats
- firearms
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1856 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Manoj Bharti S/O Kailash Bihari Prasad Singh @ Kailash Singh @ Kailash
Bharti R/O Village- Manjhaul-1, Tilak Nagar, P.S- Manjhaul, Distt.-
Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arjun Chaudhary S/O Harilal Chaudhary R/O Village- Cheriya Bariyarpur,
P.S- Cheriya Bariyarpur, Distt.- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 04-02-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.1 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
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 02.04.2025 in A.B.A. No. 600/2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Begusarai in
connection with Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.19/2025,
registered under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 352,
351(1) of the BNS, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1856 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
Sections 3(1), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that a no confidence motion was brought against the
Pramukh and Up-pramukh on 19.02.2025 by Manoj Bharti and
others, the informant was opposing the no confidence motion,
on account of which, Manoj, Raman, Dablu, Niranjan and Ajay
were threatening him from his mobile as well as from mobile of
others for sometime and were asking the informant to support
the no confidence motion or he along with his family would be
killed, next alleges that 19.02.2025 at 11 P.M. the accused
persons came and fired seven rounds at his house but informant
was not present but his mother was in the house and firing was
resorted by the appellant and others.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that this appellant had brought a no
confidence motion against the Pramukh and Up-pramukh and
the informant was not supporting the no confidence motion i.e.
the informant was on the side of Pramukh and Up-pramukh. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1856 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
next submitted that informant also alleges that since he was not
supporting the no confidence motion as such the appellant along
with others were threatening him by their mobile and mobile of
others but then the informant did not institute any case, when he
was receiving the threatening. It is also submitted that no doubt
allegation is of firing but then no one was injured in the firing. It
is also submitted that informant himself alleges that he was not
present at the house as such it creates a doubt that as to why the
appellant along with other accused would have gone to the
house of the informant to kill him, when no confidence motion
was still pending and the no confidence motion was not brought
against the informant but against the Pramukh and Up-pramukh.
It is also submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the
occurrence nor the FIR even remotely suggests that the mother
of the informant disclosed that who resorted to firing. It is also
submitted that it might be a possibility that Pramukh and Up-
pramukh hatched a conspiracy since a no confidence motion
was brought against them by the appellant and others and in
order to implicate them the informant has been used as a stooge.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant but then are not in a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1856 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant that informant is not an
eyewitness to the occurrence nor his mother disclosed that it
was the appellant and other who resorted to the firing nor the
FIR even remotely suggests that the occurrence was witnessed
by any independent witnesses.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
order impugned is set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court
below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court
below where the case is pending in connection with the
aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…