Patna High Court
BUTAI CHAUDHARY @ RAMVILAS CHAUDHARYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the appellant due to the specific allegations and the gravity of the offences alleged.
Summary
The appellant, Butai Chaudhary, appealed against the order of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya, which rejected his request for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged assault, caste‑based slurs and the death of the informant’s husband. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, as an order‑giver, entered the informant’s house, assaulted her husband and used caste slurs, leading to the husband’s death. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, that there was an 18‑day delay in filing the FIR, that the allegations were vague, and that no caste name was used publicly, thus no offence under the SC/ST Act. The State and the informant contended that specific allegations against the appellant existed, he was named in the FIR, and regular bail for co‑accused had already been dismissed. Considering the specific allegations, the nature and gravity of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and SC/ST Act, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant in view of the specific allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the appellant’s lack of prior criminal record warrants anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118, 126, 3(5), 351(2), 352
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste violence
- assault
- murder
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- FIR delay
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1943 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-806 Year-2024 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
BUTAI CHAUDHARY @ RAMVILAS CHAUDHARY S/o- Late Bundi
Chaudhary Village- Orail Ps- Wazirganj Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanchan Devi W/o- Late Rajesh Chaudhary Village- Amethi Ps- Wazirganj
Dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned Exclusive
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya whereby the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellant in connection with Wazirganj
P.S. Case No. 806 of 2024 under Sections 126, 115(2), 117(2),
118, 109, 103(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section
3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1943 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant
along with other co-accused persons have forcefully entered the
house of informant, assaulted her husband and used caste based
slurs. Husband of the informant died in course of his treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted
that there is delay of eighteen days in lodging the FIR. It is next
submitted that the allegation levelled against the appellant is
general and omnibus in nature and the appellant has been
arrested only on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the appellant has not taken the
caste name of the informant in public view. Hence, no offence
under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The
appellant has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant
in public view. The appellant has got no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the appellant and submitted that there is specific
allegation against the appellant as an order giver and he has also
assaulted the deceased. It is next submitted that the appellant is
named in the FIR. It is further submitted that regular bail of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1943 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
other co-accused has been dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 13.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3892 of 2025.
Hence, the appellant does not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, specific allegation as also nature and gravity of the
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the appellant at this juncture.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.