Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar Modi @ Dilip Prasad GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and bail is granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, members of the Modi family, were charged under several IPC offences and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting Ranjit Rajak and his family with caste‑based slurs and theft on 12 May 2024. The trial court rejected their application for anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. On appeal, the appellants argued that they have clean antecedents, the FIR was lodged two days after the incident without justification, and the alleged caste abuse did not occur in a public place, thus not attracting the rigours of the SC/ST Act. The High Court, considering the delay, clean record and the nature of the alleged abuse, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) CrPC and 482(2) of the BNSS, and set aside the trial court’s order. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were released on bail upon furnishing the required bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged caste‑based abuse.
- Whether the alleged caste slurs were made in a public place, attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the two‑day delay in lodging the FIR is a ground to deny bail.
- Whether the clean antecedent of the appellants warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- assault
- FIR delay
- bail conditions
- public place requirement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2513 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Dilip Kumar Modi @ Dilip Prasad Gupta son of Kishori Modi @ Kishori
Prasad Gupta Resident of Village- Mananpur Bazar, P.S.- Chanan, District-
Lakhisarai
2. Guddu Kumar son of Dilip Kumar Modi @ Dilip Prasad Gupta Resident of
Village- Mananpur Bazar, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai
3. Ravi Kumar Son of Dilip Kumar Modi @ Dilip Prasad Gupta Resident of
Village- Mananpur Bazar, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai
4. Lucky Devi @ Lakhi Devi Wife of Dilip Kumar Modi @ Dilip Prasad Gupta
Resident of Village- Mananpur Bazar, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sumitra Devi Wife of Naresh Rajak Resident of Village- Mananpur Bazar,
Po- Mananpur, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Rupa Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Vandna Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the Respondent no. 2 and learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
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
13.06.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Lakhisarai, in A.B.P. No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2513 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
592 of 2025 in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No. 56 of
2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2)
303(2), 3(5) and 74 of the B.N.S read with Sections 3(2)(va) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, was added, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 12.05.2024 at
about 12:00 P.M., Ranjit rajak (son of the informant) was
transporting goods/items of Bunty Kumar Gupta on a cart.
When he parked his cart in front of the shop of Dilip Kumar
Modi (appellant no. 1) to unload the goods, appellant no. 1
hurled caste-based slurs at him and Guddu Kumar (appellant no.
2) pulled the neck of her son by gamcha with a view to kill him
and Ravi Kumar (appellant no. 3) assaulted him by means of
lathi and the gold locket worth Rs. 50,000/- was snatched by
Lucky Devi (appellant no. 4) from his neck. When the
informant, Sumitra Devi, came to rescue her son, then all the
accused persons also assaulted her and tore her cloth and tried to
outrage her modesty. Thereafter, when Ravi Kumar Rajak
(nephew of the informant) intervened, then all accused persons
also assaulted him and hurled caste-based slurs at him.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2513 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
submits that the appellants bear clean antecedent and are
innocent. It is further submitted that there is a delay of two days
in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible explanation for
the same. It has also been submitted that the present case is the
counterblast of Chanan P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, which has
been instituted by the appellant no. 4 (Lucky Devi) against the
son of the informant. As regards allegation of abuse with the
caste name attracting the rigours of SC & ST Act is concerned,
it is not committed in a public place nor any person has been
named to be present at the place of occurrence when the alleged
offence of abuse was being committed. Hence, the impugned
order may be set aside and the appellants may be granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 have vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the appellants bear clean antecedent
coupled with the fact that there is a delay of two days in lodging
the present FIR and the allegation of abuse by caste name does
not appear to be within public view, let the above named
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2513 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
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 the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST,
Lakhisarai, in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No. 56 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 13.06.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…