Patna High Court
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Rakesh Singh, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several sections of the Bihar National Security Act for alleged assault and theft. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. On appeal, the appellant argued that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident without explanation, that he was not specifically named in the victim’s statement, and that the alleged assault occurred inside a private residence, rendering Section 18 of the SC/ST Act inapplicable. The prosecution could not refute these points. The Patna High Court set aside the lower court’s order, granting anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR is delayed and the accused is not specifically named in the victim’s statement.
- Whether Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applies to an assault that took place inside a private residence.
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- FIR delay
- Section 18
- private assault
- false case
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2442 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Prasad Singh Son of Late Rameshwar Singh Village-
Athri Ward No 02 Athri P.s -Runnisaidpur District- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Renu Devi Wife of Rupesh Kumar Village- Athri, P.s -Runnisaidpur District-
Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ajay
Thakur, learned Special P.P. Mr. Sadanand Paswan 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 14.05.2025 in A.B.P. No. 16/2025 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection with Runnisaidpur
P.S. Case No. 116/2025, registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117, 109(1), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2442 of 2025(5) dt.31-03-2026
2/5
well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that on 15.03.2025 at 6.30 P.M., 13 named accused persons
including the appellant came to her house and appellant said that
her brother had instituted a case under SC/ST Act and is not
willing to compromise despite request and abused by taking
caste name, further on order of Chandeshwar, appellant dashed
her on the ground and assaulted by rod causing fracture of left
hand and Kundan fled with a box containing Rs.50,000/-, sari
and ear-ring, on alarm her husband came, when all the accused
assaulted him causing fracture of leg and hand and on account
of which he became unconscious and accused left threatening
not to institute a case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is
15.03.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 20.03.2025 i.e.
after a delay of five days without any plausible explanation of
delay. It is also submitted that it does not appear probable that
had what has been alleged in the FIR if had been true, in that
event, the fardbeyan of the informant would have been recorded
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2442 of 2025(5) dt.31-03-2026
3/5
by the police in the hospital or if the police did no record the
fardbeyan of the informant in the hospital, in that event, any
family member of the informant could have informed the police
about the occurrence. It is also submitted that appellant had a
shop in the area, where the informant and her husband resides
and there was a theft in the shop for which Runnisaidpur P.S.
Case No.441/2023 was instituted against unknown and
subsequently it transpired that the informant and her family
members involved in the occurrence. It is further submitted that
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.75/2025 dated 17.02.2025 was
instituted by employee of the appellant against the informant
husband and her brother alleging that they had dashed him by a
car. It is further submitted that from perusal of the injury report,
it would manifest that injury suffered by the informant on
forearm i.e. swelling has been opined to be grievous and rest of
the injuries have been opined to be simple in nature. It is thus
submitted that it does not appear probable that had 13 persons
assaulted the informant in that event only one injury would have
been opined to be grievous though it is fairly submitted that
appellant is alleged to have assaulted the informant by rod
causing injury on hand but then it is submitted that at Para-4, the
re-statement of the victim was recorded, wherein she has stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2442 of 2025(5) dt.31-03-2026
4/5
that all the accused assaulted her and has not specifically named
the appellant. It is also submitted that since a dispute is brewing
in between the parties from before, as such the present false case
came to be instituted implicating number of accused persons
including the family members of the appellant. It is also
submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true
without admitting then the entire occurrence took place in the
house of the informant, as such, was not in public view, hence
rigors of Section 18 shall not apply.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant is
not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant that the FIR was instituted
after a delay of five days without any plausible explanation of
delay and that informant in her re-statement recorded at Para-4
of the case diary has not specifically named the appellant
alleging that he assaulted her.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
order impugned is set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2442 of 2025(5) dt.31-03-2026
5/5
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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.