Patna High Court
Rahul MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and allowed bail to appellants 2‑10 subject to conditions, holding that the allegations were insufficiently specific to deny bail.
Summary
The appellants, members of the Mandal family, were charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC provisions for alleged caste‑based assault and abuse of an informant and her family on 10‑Nov‑2024. The trial court had refused anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. On appeal, counsel argued that the allegations against most appellants were vague, the alleged offences occurred inside a private residence, there were no independent witnesses, and the injury report contradicted the claim of a knife injury. The State and the informant could not refute these points. The High Court held that, given the lack of specificity and the private nature of the incident, anticipatory bail could be granted to appellants 2‑10, subject to bail bonds and sureties, and set aside the lower court’s order, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act when the allegations are general and not specific
- Whether the private setting of the alleged offence and absence of independent witnesses preclude denial of bail
- Whether contradictions in the injury report affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 124, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 318, 329(4), 351(2), 352, 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste violence
- private offence
- lack of witnesses
- injury report contradiction
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1871 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Raju Mandal, S/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
2. Rahul Mandal S/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
3. Rajan Mandal S/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
4. Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal S/o Late Choudhary Mandal
Resident of Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
5. Munni Devi W/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
6. Rubi Devi D/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
7. Radha Devi D/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
8. Dilip Mandal S/o Rudal Mandal Resident of Village- Chapriya Singhaso,
P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
9. Rohit Mandal S/o Shatrudhan Mandal @ Shatrughan Mandal Resident of
Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
10. Kanchal Devi @ Kanchan Devi @ Kanchan Kumari W/o Rohit Mandal
Resident of Village- Chapriya Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vibha Devi W/o Kishor Kumar Ram Resident of Village- Chapriya
Singhaso, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1871 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/5
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
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 18.03.2025 in A.B.P. No. 396 of 2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST
(POA) Act, Madhubani, in connection with G.R. No. 189 of
2024 arising out of Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024
registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 124, 115(2), 318,
109,76, 303(2), 352 351(2), 329(4) of the B.N.S. as well as
Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with respect
to appellant no. 1 who was arrested during the pendency of the
instant appeal.
4. Permission is accorded.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellant no. 2, 4, 5 and 9 have antecedent of one case and
appellant nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are persons with clean
antecedent and appellant nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10 are women and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1871 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/5
informant alleges that on 10.11.2024 at around 10.00 am, the
appellants including the accused persons came and abused the
informant and her daughter by using caste name on account of a
dispute relating to a previous case instituted by the sister-in-law
of the informant namely Geeta. It is further alleged that
appellants tore informant clothes and assaulted her on her arms
with tengari. It is next alleged that Rahul Mandal dashed
Ranjeeta on the ground and sat on her chest and assaulted her
by knife causing injury on head, thereafter, other accused joined
and assaulted other family members and snatched mobile phone
of Ranjeeta and informant's mangalsutra.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
as far as allegation of assaulting Ranjeeta by knife is alleged the
same is falsified by the injury report which records the injury of
Ranjeeta to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
substance as pleaded at para 18 of the appeal. It is also
submitted that even informant suffered simple injury. It is next
submitted that specific allegation of assault is against Raju
Mandal who was arrested. It is further submitted that as far as
other appellants are concerned the allegation against them of
assault and abuse is general and omnibus in nature. It is further
submitted that it does not appear probable that all the accused in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1871 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/5
one go would have abused the informant by taking caste name.
It is next submitted that even female members of the family
have been implicated. It is further submitted that since
allegation of assault and abuse against the appellants is not
specific and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at the
house of the informant. Hence, the occurrence was not
committed in public view nor the FIR even remotely suggests
that the occurrence was witnessed by any independent
witnesses.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as learned counsel for the informant opposed but then are
not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellants that Raju Mandal has been taken in custody
and as far as other appellants are concerned, the allegation of
abuse and assault is general and omnibus in nature against them
and the entire occurrence took place at the house of the
informant.
8. Considering the submissions, let the appellant nos.
2 to 10, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the
order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1871 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
5/5
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…