Patna High Court
Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar RaiversusThe 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 subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants Ramesh Rai, Aniket, Ajeet and Ashok Rai were charged under several IPC offences and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for assaulting and robbing Lakhan Deo Das, allegedly using caste slurs. The trial court rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The appellants argued that they have clean antecedents, that the alleged caste abuse did not occur in a public place, and that the accusations were vague. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under the SC/ST Act. The Patna High Court, after considering the facts and the clean record of the appellants, held that bail could be granted subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the Cr.P.C., and set aside the trial court’s order denying anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of caste-based abuse and other offences under the SC/ST Act warrant denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged offences were committed in a public place, affecting the applicability of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellants' clean antecedent and the nature of the allegations justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 329(3), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- assault
- robbery
- Criminal Procedure Code
- public place
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1876 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- TISIAUTA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar Rai Son of Late Dukha Rai Vill-
Laxminarayanpur,P.O-Tisiauta,P.S-Tisiauta, Dist- Vaishali
2. Aniket @ Aniket Kumar son of Ashok Rai Vill-Laxminarayanpur,P.O-
Tisiauta,P.S-Tisiauta, Dist- Vaishali
3. Ajeet @ Ajeet Kumar son of Ashok Rai Vill-Laxminarayanpur,P.O-
Tisiauta,P.S-Tisiauta, Dist- Vaishali
4. Ashok Rai Son of Sipahi Rai Vill-Laxminarayanpur,P.O-Tisiauta,P.S-
Tisiauta, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lakhan Deo Das Son of Late Suraj Das Vill-Laxminarayanpur Ward no.
13 ,P.S-Tisiauta, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 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 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
22.04.2025 passed by learned I/C Exclusive Special Judge
SC/ST (PoA) Act-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1876 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
Vaishali at Hajipur in A.B.P. No. 794 of 2025 in connection with
Tisiauta P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025, registered under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 190, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 115(2), 109 and 303(2)
the B.N.S. read with Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(r) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant
has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 24.02.2025 at
about 7:30 P.M., the informant, namely, Lakhan Dev Das, was
sitting at his door. Due to previous dispute, the appellants along
with others co-accused persons armed with sharp-edged
weapons, arrived and started hurling caste-based slurs at him.
On being opposed by the informant, all the accused persons
began assaulting him. When Abhishek Kumar (son of the
informant) and Rajnandani Kumari (daughter of the informant)
intervened to mediate the situation, co-accused Manish Kumar
hit the head of Abhishek Kumar by means of iron rod with an
intention to kill him and co-accused Vishal Kumar hit the
daughter of the informant due to which she sustained severe
injury. Further, all the accused persons forcibly entered the
house of the informant and took away several gold ornaments
and cash from the box. On hulla, the villages arrived, therefore,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1876 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
all the accused persons ran away by giving life threats to the
informant. Thereafter, the informant and his family members
were taken to the hospital for treatment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants bear clean antecedent and are
innocent. He further submits that there is general and omnibus
allegation against the appellants and specific allegation has been
levelled against Manish Kumar and Vishal Kumar, although
they were the initial appellants in this case but their prayer for
anticipatory bail was withdrawn vide order dated 07.07.2025.
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. 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 the fact that the appellants bear clean antecedent
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1876 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
and the allegation does not seem to have been committed within
public view, 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 I/C Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act-cum-
District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in
connection with Tisiauta P.S. Case No. 27 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 22.04.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…