Patna High Court
Savita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that, despite the police exoneration, cognizance taken under the SC/ST Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail and the appeal is disposed with a direction to surrender before the trial court.
Summary
The appellants, Savita Devi, Kunal Bhagat and Pradeep Bhagat, were charged under IPC sections 504, 506, 420, 406, 34 and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly abusing an informant over a disputed silver‑ornament mortgage. They sought anticipatory bail, which the Special Sessions Judge denied. The appellants contended that the police investigation had exonerated them, that there was no documentary evidence of the alleged mortgage, and that the alleged incident was not a public offence, thus the rigour of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act should not apply. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant could not rebut these submissions, but argued that cognizance had been taken, creating a prima facie case. The Patna High Court, while inclined to grant anticipatory bail, held that because cognizance had been taken the appeal must be disposed of, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court by 03‑07‑2026, after which the trial court would consider the case in light of the police exoneration.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when cognizance of the offence has been taken under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the police’s final report exonerating the accused and the lack of documentary evidence preclude continuation of the criminal proceedings.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellants’ prayer for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- police exoneration
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2269 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2018 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Savita Devi W/O Laxman Bhagat Resident of village- Rasaunk, PS-
Morkahi, district - Khagaria
2. Kunal Bhagat @ Kunal Kumar S/O Anil Bhagat Resident of village-
Rasaunk, PS- Morkahi, district - Khagaria
3. Pradeep Bhagat S/O Laxman Bhagat Resident of village- Rasaunk, PS-
Morkahi, district - Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lukho Devi W/O Sakhichan Sada Resident of village- Nawtoliya Rasaunk,
PS- Morkahi, district - Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh
Ms.Seema Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 18-06-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated
15.05.2025 passed by Sri Pawan Kumar Jha, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Khagaria in connection with ABA No.24 of 2025 arising out of
Morkahi PS Case No. 66 of 2018, instituted for the offences
under Sections 504, 506, 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2269 of 2025(7) dt.18-06-2026
2/4
Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby their
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant nos.1 and 3 are persons with
clean antecedent and appellant no.2 has antecedent of one case
as would manifest from the supplementary affidavit. It is next
submitted that informant alleges that five years back, she had
taken loan of Rs.1400/- after mortgaging silver ornament with
one Mina Devi. It is next alleged that Mina Devi died on
18.03.2018, thereafter the informant went to the house of Mina
Devi for redeeming the mortgage after paying an amount of
Rs.6600/-, but grandson of Mina Devi refused to return the
silver ornaments. It is next alleged that named accused persons
including the appellants also abused her by taking caste name.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that
from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the same does not inspire confidence as no
documentary evidence has been annexed with the FIR showing
that any silver ornament worth Rs.1400/- was mortgaged with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2269 of 2025(7) dt.18-06-2026
3/4
Mina Devi. It is next submitted that even presuming what has
been alleged is true without admitting, then entire occurrence
took place at the house of the appellants, as such, was not in
public view, hence rigor of section 18 of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act
shall not apply. It is also submitted that police after threadbare
investigation came to a considered conclusion that appellants
are innocent and thus submitted final form but exonerating the
appellants of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, but then the
learned Trial Court differing with the police report took
cognizance in the Year 2019, but then the appellants never
received any summons and the appellants for the first time
received summon in the Year 2024 and thereafter they moved
before the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail. It is
further submitted that when one investigating agency after
threadbare investigation came to a considered conclusion that
appellants are innocent whether it would be prudent for the
Court to send the appellants to jail based on an order of
cognizance which came to be taken based on the same police
report which had exonerated the appellants of the allegations.
5. The learned Special P.P. and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of informant are not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2269 of 2025(7) dt.18-06-2026
4/4
appellants that police after investigation submitted final form
exonerating the appellants of the allegations, but then it is
submitted that since cognizance has been taken, as such, a
prima facie case is made out.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellants but since cognizance has been taken, as
such, the appeal is disposed of with direction to the appellants to
surrender before the learned Trial Court on or before
03.07.2026.
7. It is made clear that if the appellants surrender
before the learned Trial Court on 03.07.2026, in that event, the
learned Trial Court shall consider the case and dispose of the
same on the same day keeping in mind the fact that police after
investigation submitted final form exonerating the appellants of
the allegations as alleged in the FIR and shall also take into
account the observation of this court made hereinabove.
8. The appeal is disposed of.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.