Patna High Court
MD. Saif @ Saif Shahid @ Md. Saif ShahidversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Md Saif Shahid, was charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged caste‑based abuse, demolition of a boundary wall, and extortion in a land dispute. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the Special Judge had refused bail. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, the delay in filing, and the applicability of the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act to deny bail. The Court found the allegations to be vague, the FIR deficient in particulars of extortion, and noted the procedural delay, concluding that denial of anticipatory bail was unwarranted. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appellant was granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act justify refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2).
- Whether the FIR sufficiently discloses cognizable offences under the listed IPC and SC/ST provisions.
- Whether the delay between the alleged incidents and the filing of the FIR affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the High Court can intervene under Section 482(2) of the CrPC to set aside the lower court's refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 119(1), 190, 191(2), 308(2), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- land dispute
- CrPC Section 482
- IPC offences
- extortion
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2237 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
MD. Saif @ Saif Shahid @ Md. Saif Shahid S/o Md. Shahid R/o Mohalla -
Abbas Lane, Old Karimganj, P.S.- Civil Lines, Distt. - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Kumari W/o Ajay Kumar Rajak R/o Mohalla - A.N. Road, Dukharni
Mandir, P.S. - Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special P.P. Mr. Sadanand Paswan and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of 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 16.05.2025 in A.B.P. No. 129/2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection
with Chandauti P.S. Case No.11/2025, registered under Sections
190, 191(2), 115(2), 119(1), 308(2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS,
2023 and Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2237 of 2025(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has antecedent of three cases and the informant alleges
that she purchased a land from Indradev and on 29.05.2023
when she was constructing boundary wall on the purchased
land, when appellant and Parvez came and abused the labourer
and drove them away and demolished 3 ft. of the boundary wall
abused the informant by caste name and threatened of dire
consequences if the land is not vacated, it is next alleged that the
land of the informant was measured on 05.12.2023 when ¾ land
mafia demanded extortion, it is next alleged that when
informant went to start construction on the land on 21.12.2024
when Indradev demanded extortion.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that a land
dispute has been given a criminal colour. It is also submitted
that the informant alleges that on 29.05.2023 for the first time
she was abused and threatened of dire consequences but then no
case came to be instituted. It is next submitted that thereafter on
05.12.2023 it is alleged that land mafias were demanding
extortion but still no case came to be instituted and finally on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2237 of 2025(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/4
21.12.2024 when she again went to start construction on the
land it is alleged that Indradev demanded extortion from whom
the informant had purchased the land. Learned counsel further
submits that though allegation of extortion is alleged but then
what amount was being demanded by way of extortion is not
disclosed in the FIR, which also casts an aspersion on the case
of the prosecution. It is next submitted that even the FIR came
to be instituted on 08.01.2025 when the initial cause of action
for instituting a criminal case has arises on 29.05.2023, which
further casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
further submitted that even allegation of abuse is general and
omnibus in nature when SC/ST Act is a stringent Act.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant but then are not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant as recorded hereinabove.
6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant, the order impugned is set aside. Let the
appellant, above named, in the event of his 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 bond of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2237 of 2025(2) dt.24-04-2026
4/4
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where
the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNS, 2023.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…