Patna High Court
LALITA RAUT @ LALIT RAUTversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal for anticipatory bail is not maintainable where cognizance under the SC/ST Act has already been taken.
Summary
The appellant, Lalita Raut, filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after a complaint was lodged. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge‑cum‑SC/ST Special Court rejected the bail, prompting an appeal to the Patna High Court. The State’s Special Public Prosecutor contended that anticipatory bail was not maintainable because the court had already taken cognizance of the offence under the SC/ST Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar, the High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when cognizance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has already been taken
- Whether the provisions of the SC/ST Act preclude the grant of anticipatory bail in offences punishable under Sections 366A and 506 IPC
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366A, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- pre‑arrest bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 366A
- Section 506
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2298 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2021 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
LALITA RAUT @ LALIT RAUT Son of Chan Govind Resident of village -
Sisai, P.S.- Sahjitpur, District - Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kabilash Baitha Son of Late Dukhan Baitha Resident of village - Sisai, P.S.-
Sahjitpur, District - Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
12.04.2023 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-SC/ST Special Court, Saran in ABP No. 926 of 2023
arising out of SC/ST Tr Case No. 111 of 2022, Complaint No.
262 of 2021, registered under Sections 366A, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the
prayer for anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that the instant anticipatory bail is not maintainable as from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2298 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that cognizance
under SC/ST Act has already been taken 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…