Patna High Court
Santosh SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and anticipatory bail is granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, who are members of a Scheduled Caste, were accused of assault and caste-based abuse arising from a dispute over a tractor purchase. The informant alleged that the appellants forcibly took the tractor and verbally abused him using caste slurs, leading to an FIR filed 78 days after the alleged incident. The appellants sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing they have clean antecedents, the FIR was unduly delayed, and the alleged act was not in public view. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Patna High Court set aside the lower court’s refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail subject to a bond and sureties, invoking its powers under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the present facts.
- Whether the delay of more than 78 days in filing the FIR warrants a bail order.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse constitutes an offence triable under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the incident, occurring at the appellants' residence, falls within the ambit of a public offence for bail considerations.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 to grant anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i), 3(x)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- delay in FIR
- Section 482 inherent powers
- criminal procedure
- false accusation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2369 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Santosh Sah S/O Moharlal Sah @ Mohan Sah R/O Village- Bara Shankar,
PS- Patahi, Distt-East Champaran(Bihar)
2. Munchun Sah @ Munchun Kumar S/O Moharlal Sah @ Mohan Sah R/O
Village- Bara Shankar, PS- Patahi, Distt-East Champaran(Bihar)
3. Munna Sah @ Munna Kumar S/O Moharlal Sah @ Mohan Sah R/O Village-
Bara Shankar, PS- Patahi, Distt-East Champaran(Bihar)
4. Moharlal Sah @ Mohan Sah S/O Gulab Sah R/O Village- Bara Shankar, PS-
Patahi, Distt-East Champaran(Bihar)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Sudesh Paswan S/O Mahesh Paswan R/O Village- Bara Shankar, PS- Patahi,
Distt-East Champaran(Bihar)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the
respondent no.2.
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 01.05.2025
in A.B.P. No. 1131/2025, arising out of Patahi P.S. Case
No.43/2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 316(2),
318(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(i)
(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2369 of 2025(6) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 29.06.2022 he purchased a Mahindra Tractor from
Santosh (appellant no.1) for an amount of Rs.3,76,000/-, out of
which, he paid an amount of Rs.2,16,000/-, it is next alleged that
accused had assured that repair of the tractor would cost in
between Rs.10,000-12,000/- but then informant had to spent an
amount of Rs.60,000/-, it is further alleged that accused persons
had promised to take back the tractor and refund the money but
instead forcibly took away the tractor on 26.09.2024 for which a
panchayati was convened on 21.11.2024 at 7 P.M. and the accused
had agreed to repay the amount, further when informant and his
wife went to the house of accused persons, they abused them by
taking caste name and also dashed them on the ground.
4. Learned counsel submits that appellants have been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that the date of occurrence is 21.11.2024 and the FIR
came to be instituted on 03.02.2025 i.e. after a delay of more than
78 days which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It
is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true
without admitting with regard to abuse then the occurrence was
committed at the house of the appellants, hence was not in public
view. It is also submitted that on account of dispute relating to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2369 of 2025(6) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
purchase of tractor, a false case has been instituted. It is further
submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
appellants, the appellants will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the investigation to prove their innocence.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal.
6. Considering the submissions, the order impugned is
set aside. Let the appellants, above named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below
where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this
appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…