Patna High Court
LAKHPATI SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court permitted the withdrawal of the interim application and granted the appellants liberty to move a fresh anticipatory bail application, noting it was functus officio after the earlier disposal.
Summary
The appellants, brothers Lakhpati Singh, Sanjeev Kumar and Abhishek Vats, were charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for an alleged assault arising from a land‑sale dispute in which the informant claimed they had taken an advance of Rs 61,000 and later demanded Rs 3,80,000. The trial court refused anticipatory bail, prompting the appellants to appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court, while hearing the appeal, directed the appellants to pay the disputed amount within six months and ordered that no coercive steps be taken against them, effectively disposing of the appeal. The appellants later deposited the amount with the district court, but the informant did not withdraw the case, leading the appellants to file an interim application seeking to withdraw that application and to obtain fresh anticipatory bail. The Court held that it was functus officio after the earlier disposal and allowed the withdrawal of the interim application, granting the appellants liberty to file a fresh anticipatory bail petition before the district court.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court could issue further directions after disposing the appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the settlement offer and deposit of the disputed amount.
- Whether the interim application seeking withdrawal can be permitted.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(I), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- settlement
- functus officio
- criminal appeal
- land dispute
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2366 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. LAKHPATI SINGH Son of Late Ramshwarup Singh Resident of Village -
Punaura (West), P.S. - Punaura, District - Sitamarhi
2. Sanjeev Kumar Son of Mr. Lakhpati Singh Resident of Village - Punaura
(West), P.S. - Punaura, District - Sitamarhi
3. Abhishek Vats @ Abhishek Batsa Son of Mr. Lakhpati Singh Resident of
Village - Punaura (West), P.S. - Punaura, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushila Devi Shri Ram Chandar Ram R/O Village-Punaura West, P.S.-
Punaura, District-Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Udbhav, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 02-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Ajay
Thakur and learned Special P.P. Mr. Binay Krishna 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 09.03.2021 in A.B.P. No. 470/2021/48/2021 passed
by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2021(7) dt.02-07-2026
2/6
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021 dated 30.01.2021 registered
under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) (w) (I), 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant no.1 and 3 have antecedent of
one case and appellant no.2 is a person with clean antecedent
and appellant no.1 is a senior citizen aged about 76 years and
the informant alleges that appellant no.1 had taken advance of
Rs.61,000/- for selling 4 decimal land and thereafter her son
Ranjit paid an amount of Rs.3, 80, 000/-, as such the informant
along with her sons Ranjit and Shyam Babu came to the house
of Lakhpati Singh on 14.01.2021 at 8 A.M for requesting him to
execute sale deed, but Madhvi @ Putti, along with Sanjeev and
Abhishek started abusing them and appellant no.1 said to urinate
in their mouth, on which, Madhvi spat on her face and appellant
no.1 pulled her saree, while Sanjeev and Abhishek tore her
blouse and accused persons slapped her son and husband and
passerby saved them from further assault, thus alleges that
appellant no.1 cheated her son. It is next alleged that FIR was
delayed on account of panchayati convened.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2021(7) dt.02-07-2026
3/6
appellants submits that it is not in dispute that appellant no.1
received an amount of Rs.61,000/- by way of advance from the
son of the informant for purchasing land but ultimately in the
family a decision was taken not to sell the land as such appellant
no.1 was ready to return the amount but then informant was not
willing to accept the same, as such the appellants moved this
court seeking anticipatory bail by filing the instant criminal
appeal. It is submitted that the appeal was taken up by a learned
coordinate Bench on 02.12.2021 and a submission was made on
behalf of the appellants that they are ready to return the due
amount of Rs.3,80,000/- which they had taken for selling 4
decimal land to the informant, the informant also became ready
for the settlement, as such this Court recorded in order dated
02.12.2021 that-
“Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are ready to pay the due amount, i.e., Rs.3,80,000/- to the
informant.
Learned counsel for the informant is also ready to withdraw
the cases filed in the learned court below, if the due amount, i.e.,
Rs.3,80,000/- is paid to the informant.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, the appellants are
directed to pay Rs.3,80,000/- to the informant within a period of six
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2021(7) dt.02-07-2026
4/6
appellants in connection with Sitamarhi SC/ST P.S. Case No.06 of 2021,
pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi.
The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
If for any reason, the informant does not withdraw the cases
filed in the court below after receiving the admitted amount, as aforesaid,
the appellants are at liberty to file application in the present appeal for
passing necessary order by this Court.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
initially before this court, the informant became ready to settle
the dispute but after passing of the order dated 02.12.2021 when
appellant no.1 approached the informant for returning the
amount, the informant refused, as such the appellant no.1
deposited an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- with the District Court
vide Cheque no.905046 drawn on State Bank of India, Branch
Sitamarhi Bazar as would manifest from order dated 19.05.2022
passed by the learned ADJ-I-cum-Special Judge, in SC/ST Case
No.06 of 2021. It is submitted that informant despite being
aware that the amount of Rs.3,80,000/- has been deposited with
the court, still for reasons best known chose not to withdraw the
same.
6. It is next submitted that since informant did not
withdraw the amount deposited with the District Court in terms
of the order dated 02.12.2021, the appellants apprehended that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2021(7) dt.02-07-2026
5/6
they may be arrested, as the case was not withdrawn and 6
months period lapsed, hence in terms of the liberty granted by
order dated 02.12.2021 in the instant appeal, the present I.A.
No.01 of 2022 has been filed.
7. Learned Special P.P. at this stage submits that once
the instant appeal was disposed of by order dated 02.12.2021,
the Court became functus officio as such no further direction
could have been given.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant also concurs with the said submission but then the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits
that since liberty was granted by this Court hence the instant
I.A. application has been filed but then does not dispute the
submissions made by the learned Special P.P.
9. Learned Special P.P. further submits that if the
informant is not adhering to the condition as recorded in the
order dated 02.12.2021, which was a consented order, in that
event, the appellants could have moved afresh by filing a fresh
anticipatory bail application before the learned District Court,
bringing to its notice of the development which took place
subsequent to 02.12.2021 and based on the said ground could
have prayed for anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2021(7) dt.02-07-2026
6/6
10. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the I.A.
No.1 of 2022 with liberty to the appellants to move afresh
before the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail based
on the subsequent developments which took place after
02.12.2021, as recorded hereinabove.
11. The I.A. No.1 of 2022 is permitted to be
withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.