Patna High Court
BIMLA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail and set aside the lower court's order denying it.
Summary
The appellants, Bimla Devi and Manju Kumari, were charged under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (sections 74, 77, 352, 351(2)) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly intimidating a girl, taking obscene photographs, and threatening her family. They sought anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the trial court rejected the prayer. On appeal, the High Court noted a four‑month delay in lodging the FIR, the inapplicability of Section 74 to the facts, and that the alleged caste‑based abuse did not occur in a public place. Considering these factors, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 74 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita to the alleged conduct.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse falls within the ambit of the SC/ST Act, given it was not in a public place.
- The effect of a four‑month delay in filing the FIR on the grant of anticipatory bail.
- The propriety of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 352, 74, 77
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- delay in FIR
- Section 74 B.N.S.
- caste based harassment
- bail conditions
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2366 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- HASAN BAZAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. BIMLA DEVI W/o- Raghunath Bhagat Village- Kataria Ps- Agioan Bazar
Dist- Bhojpur
2. Manju Kumari D/o- Raghnath Bhagat Village- Kataria Ps- Agioan Bazar
Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Neelam Kumari W/o- Jitendra Kumar Village- Narayanpur Ps- Hasanbazar
Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mrs. Malti Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
02.06.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Bhojpur at Ara, in A.B.P. No. 1285
of 2025, in connection with Hasanbazar P.S. Case No. 29 of
2025, registered under Sections 74, 77, 352, 351(2) of the
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v)
(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant,
Nilam Kumari, alleged that her daughter had gone with her aunt
for performing chhath puja at village Kataria. On 07.11.2024, on
the day of chhath puja, while other family members had gone to
chhath ghat, his daughter was alone in the house of informant’s
sister-in-law (gotni), accused Govinda Kumar, Vimla Devi and
Manju Kumari, entered into the house and intimidating her at
the point of weapon they took obscene picture of her daughter
and the mother of accused Govinda Kumar, Bimla Devi, on
09.03.2025, threatened her daughter that if anything happens to
her son, then all of them will be eliminated and her mother and
father will he shot. The photographs were also sent to the
relatives of the informant. The accused persons also abused
them.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
there is delay of over four months in lodging the present FIR
without any plausible explanation. The appellants are ladies and
it is submitted that no offence under Section 74 BNS would be
made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As
regards, the allegation of abusing with the caste name attracting
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
the rigors of SC & ST Act is concerned, the same does not
appear to have been made in a public place. Hence, the
impugned order may be set aside and the appellants may be
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State have vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants and submitted that there are serious allegations
against the appellants.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that there is delay of more than four
months in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that the
offence with respect to BNS being not applicable against the
appellants and the alleged abuses does not appear to be within
the public view, let the above named appellants, in the event of
their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge (SC/ST), Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Hasanbazar
P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2366 of 2025(6) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
Cr.P.C..
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 02.06.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…