Patna High Court
Prabhat KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that in the absence of direct allegations or evidence of the appellants firing a weapon or committing public caste abuse, anticipatory bail may be granted subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Prabhat Kumar and Pritesh Kumar, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and related provisions for allegedly abusing and assaulting the son of informant Rajo Paswan, with a co‑accused firing a pistol. The trial judge rejected their applications for anticipatory bail. The appellants contended they were merely students and denied involvement in the alleged caste‑based abuse and the shooting. The prosecution argued that the appellants were present with the shooter and participated in the assault. The High Court observed that no specific allegation or evidence linked the appellants to the firing, and the alleged verbal abuse was not shown to have occurred in public view, nor was there an injury report to substantiate the claim. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Sections 438 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., setting aside the trial court’s orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 despite the allegations of caste‑based abuse and a shooting incident.
- Whether the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently links the appellants to the alleged firing and public caste abuse required under the Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352
- 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)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- anticipatory bail
- caste based violence
- criminal procedure
- bail
- arms act
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2472 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Prabhat Kumar Son of Bablu Kumar Ray @ Bablu Kumar Ramlakhan Rai
R/O- Village- Sugga, P.S.- Bakhri, District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajo Paswan son of Brahamdeo Paswan village- Babhain, Ward no. 10, Ps-
Bakhri, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2871 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Pritesh Kumar Son of Surendra Roy @ Jawahar Patel Resident of Village
-Sugaa Ward No 6 PS -Bakhri District- Begusarai
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajo Paswan son of Brahmdeo Paswan village- Babhen, Ps- Bakhri, Dist-
Begusarai
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2472 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2871 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 As both these appeals arise out of the same Bakhri
P.S. Case No.160 of 2025, with the consent of the parties, the
same are being heard and disposed of.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2472 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Both these appeals under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 are directed against the orders dated
30.05.2025 and 30.06.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special
Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai, respectively in A.B.P.
No.1047 of 2025 and A.B.P. No. 1307 of 2025, in connection
with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 160 of 2025, registered under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109(1), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of the appellant(s) has been rejected.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant, Rajo
Paswan, alleged that on 03.05.2025 at 06:30 PM, one Chattis
Kumar made a call to his son asked him to come to Babhen
Bhawra Pul and when his son along with his friends went there,
the appellants along with others started abusing his son by his
caste name and also assaulted him. In the meanwhile, one Vishal
Kumar while abusing his son with his caste name, pulled out
pistol and opened fire upon him with an intention to kill him as
a result of which he sustained gun shot injury on his right thigh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2472 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
and they fled away.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the
appeals submitted that the appellants are students and denied the
allegations levelled against them. It would be apparent from the
FIR itself that the allegation of firing is against co-accused
Vishal Kumar and the appellants and other four named accused
persons and 5-6 unknown are alleged to have abused the
informant’s son in a public place, whereas no witnesses have
been named to have witnessed the offence of abusing by taking
caste name attracting the provisions of SC/ST Act.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2
vehemently opposing the prayer of the appellants for grant of
anticipatory bail submitted that the appellants were in
association of co-accused Vishal Kumar at the time of alleged
occurrence, when he had fired upon the informant’s son.
Moreover, the appellants had tried to eliminate his son, but
luckily he was saved.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
also opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
8. Considering the fact that even though there is no
allegation against the appellants of firing at the informant’s son
or even they were armed with any lethal weapon, the allegation
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2472 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
of firing are not againt the appellants, moreover, the alleged
abuse does not appear to have been made in public view as no
persons are claimed to be present at the place of occurrence and
even though the informant specifically claims that his son was
injured by bullet fired by co-accused Vishal Kumar, there is no
injury report on the record to substantiate the said allegation, 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 Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai,
in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 160 of 2025, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C..
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned orders dated 30.05.2025 and 30.06.2025 rejecting the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants are set
aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…