Patna High Court
JAGESHWAR MAHTO @ JAGESHWAR PRASAD @ JAGESAR MAHTOversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not maintainable where cognizance has already been taken.
Summary
The appellant, Jageshwar Mahto, was charged under several IPC sections (341, 447, 323, 354, 504/34) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Exclusive Special Judge. On appeal, the respondent (Manti Devi) argued that anticipatory bail could not be entertained because the court had already taken cognizance of the offence under the SC/ST Act. The Patna High Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar, which held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken. Applying that precedent, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the bail application was not maintainable. Consequently, the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail was denied.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when cognizance of the offence under the SC/ST Act has already been taken.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar applies to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354, 447, 504/34
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1892 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-686 Year-2022 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Jageshwar Mahto @ Jageshwar Prasad @ Jagesar Mahto Son of Dilchand
Mahto Resident of Village - Amaithi, P.S.- Wazirganj, District - Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manti Devi Wife of Bhagwan Das Resident of Village - Amaithi, P.S.-
Wazirganj, District - Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. Public Prosecutor
For the R.No. 2 : Mr. Rohit Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant, respondent no. 2 and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
16.03.2023 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Gaya in ABP No. 33 of 2023 arising out of Wazirganj P. S.
Case No. 686 of 2022, registered under Sections 341, 447, 323,
354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(va) of
the SC/ST Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of
appellants has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the instant
anticipatory bail is not maintainable as cognizance under SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1892 of 2023(8) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
Act has already been taken against appellant on 24.09.2025 by
learned Court below and in this connection, he refers to a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in case of
Bachu Das Vs State of Bihar and others, reported in Cr.
Appeal No. 314 of 2014.
4. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in case of Bachu Das (supra), instant appeal filed
for pre-arrest bail to the appellant, is dismissed as being not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…