Patna High Court
Ramjee Singh @ Ramjee Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The appellate court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The appellants, Ramjee Singh and Kundal Singh, were charged under IPC sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly forcing entry into a house, assaulting the informant's brother and using caste-based abuse. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Judge. On appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court noted the appellants' clean antecedent, the thirteen‑day delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of any specific caste name in the allegations. Considering these factors, the Court held that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The appeal was allowed and the order rejecting bail was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within the ambit of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly Sections 3(1)(r)(s).
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the FIR being lodged after a delay and the lack of a specific caste name in the complaint.
- Whether the Special Judge's order rejecting anticipatory bail is legally sustainable.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- delay in FIR
- clean antecedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2009 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2024 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ramjee Singh @ Ramjee Prasad Singh SON OF Shyamala Singh
VILLAGE- DEFENCE COLONY, PS- SHAHPUR, DIST- PATNA
2. Kundal Singh @ Kundan Singh @ Kundan Kumar Singh Son Of Late
Shivjee Singh Village- Defence Colony, Ps- Shahpur, Dist- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. KIRAN KUMARI WIFE OF RAVINDRA KUMAR RAM VILLAGE-
DEFENCE COLONY, PS- SHAHPUR, DIST- PATNA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 12-02-2026 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
01.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act,
Patna, in ABP no. 945 of 2024 in connection with Shahpur P.S.
Case No. 66 of 2024 registered under Sections 341, 504, 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2009 of 2024(4) dt.12-02-2026
2/3
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that the appellants and co-accused persons along with
some unknown persons forcibly entered the house of the
informant, when the informant’s brother intervened they started
assaulting her brother and also abused by taking caste name and
threatened to kill. Thereafter, nearby people came and saved
them.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and
have not committed any offence. It is further submitted that
there is a delay of thirteen days in lodging the FIR. He further
submits that it appears from the F.I.R. itself that there is general
and omnibus allegation against all the appellants. Learned
counsel has further submitted that no particular caste name has
been called by the appellants, hence no case is made out under
section SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that there is no
specific allegation of assault against the appellants. Hence, the
impugned order may be set aside and the appellants may be
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2009 of 2024(4) dt.12-02-2026
3/3
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the appellants and submitted that the appellants are actively
involved in the present occurrence.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that the appellants bear clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that there is delay in lodging
the FIR, 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
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna, in connection
with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 66 of 2024 subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 01.04.2024 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.