Patna High Court
Chhoti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any prima facie allegation of caste‑based abuse, the incident does not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the appellant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Chhoti Devi appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order of the Special Judge dated 20.05.2026 that had denied her bail. The FIR alleged that she, along with several villagers, pelted stones at a police raid team, damaging a vehicle and injuring officers. The appellant contended that the police officer who conducted the raid was a Scheduled Caste member, but there was no allegation in the FIR that the stone‑pelting was motivated by caste hatred. The High Court held that the allegation of caste‑based abuse was not made on the face of the FIR and therefore the offence could not be treated as an atrocity under the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the court directed that she be released on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the stone‑pelting incident alleged in the FIR amounts to an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the absence of a prima facie caste‑based motive.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 121(1)(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2)(3)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste atrocity
- stone pelting
- police raid
- prima facie allegation
- clean antecedent
- limitation period
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2301 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2025 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Chhoti Devi Wife of Dukhi Mahto Resident of Village- Chandchaur, P.S.-
Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) against
the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST, Samastipur in A.B.P. No. 1004/2026 in connection with
Ujiarpur P.S. Case No. 361/2025 registered under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 191(2)(3), 190 and 121(1)(2) of the
BNS and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as
prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. As the informant in this case is police official,
therefore, learned Spl. PP accepted notice on behalf of
informant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2301 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
5. As per FIR, informant who is ASI of Bihar Police,
when went to conduct raid along with police officials in
connection with illegal excise activities, the appellant along
with 14 named and 20-25 unknown villagers pelted stone on
police team, as a result of which police vehicle was damaged
and some of the police officials received injuries during the
occurrence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that informant conducted raid in his official capacity
being ASI of Bihar Police. It is submitted that appellant was not
aware about the fact that informant who is police officer is a
member of SC community. It is submitted that even FIR is not
disclosing any allegation qua abusing in caste name in public
view, therefore, implication of appellant under SC/ST Act
appears bad in the eyes of law. In support of his submission
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand, [(2020) 10 SCC 710]. Appellant is a lady and
claimed clean antecedent.
7. Learned Special P.P. opposed the prayer of bail.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, as
mentioned above and by taking note of fact as allegation qua
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2301 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
pelting stone is appearing very much general and omnibus
against this appellant, where prima-facie no allegation of
abusing in caste name appears against appellant, accordingly,
above-named appellant, who is a lady of clean antecedent, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court,
within a period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be
released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Samastipur/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Samastipur in A.B.P. No. 1004/2026 in
connection with Ujiarpur P.S. Case No. 361/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 20.05.2026 is
hereby set aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.