Patna High Court
Rajesh Ranjan @ Raju SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court disposed the appeal by directing the appellant to surrender before the trial court, effectively refusing anticipatory bail pending trial.
Summary
The appellant, Rajesh Ranjan (Raju Singh), was charged under several IPC provisions and Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault, caste-based abuse, and a land‑related dispute. He contended that he has a clean record and that the complaint is false, arising from a private altercation at the complainant's house, not a public offence. The trial court, sitting as an exclusive special court under the SC/ST Act, rejected his application for anticipatory bail. The State and the complainant opposed bail, arguing that a prima facie case exists and that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies. The High Court, after hearing both sides, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail but held that the appeal must be disposed with a direction for the appellant to surrender before the trial court by 12‑02‑2026. The trial court was instructed to consider the case, noting that the complaint does not clearly show the witnesses were absent from the scene. Consequently, the appeal was disposed with the surrender direction, without an outright grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations constitute an offence punishable under Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether a prima facie case exists to deny anticipatory bail to the appellant.
- Whether the High Court can grant anticipatory bail notwithstanding the order of cognizance taken by the special court.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354(B), 447, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false complaint
- land dispute
- cognizance
- IPC offences
- scheduled caste abuse
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2524 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2023 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
Rajesh Ranjan @ Raju Singh S/O Jagdish Singh R/V- Arara West, P.S.-
Hajipur Sadar, Dist - Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Dhanmanti Devi S/O Maheshwar Paswan R/V - Salempur, P.S.- Hajipur
Sadar, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1- Special P. P.
Mr. Hemant Ray
Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma
Mr. Sagar Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
27.04.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court,
SC/ST Act, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with A.B.P.
No.859 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.30 of 2023,
instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 447,
504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, whereby his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2524 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and the complainant alleges that the accused persons
including the appellant came and assaulted her. On objection,
Raju and Sanjay abused her by taking caste name. Further, acted
inappropriately with her daughter in-law and unveiled them on
pretext that they are Witch and Rakesh snatched chain of Sindhu
Devi and the accused said that they forged document to usurp
land and disclosed that earlier they were giving her some money
for the land but now her land would be usurped.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
complainant with general and omnibus allegation of assault and
abuse. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on account of dispute
relating to land, the present false complaint case has been
instituted. It is also submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the entire
occurrence took place at the house of the complaint and thus
was not public view, as such, prima facie in the nature of
allegation, no offence under the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act is made out,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2524 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
but then, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court in
mechanical manner proceeded and took cognizance. It is also
submitted that though in the complaint, the complainant alleges
that accused persons said that earlier they were giving money
for the land but now they will usurp her land by creating forged
document that in itself demonstrates that earlier either some
transaction or talk with respect to purchase of land had taken
place in between the accused persons including the appellant
and the informant.
5. The learned Special P. P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the bail
application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant submits that since cognizance has been taken, as
such, a prima facie case is made out and rigors of Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act would apply, on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
nature of allegation is also to be appreciated. It is next submitted
that at the stage of cognizance, the accused is not before the
learned trial Court and the cognizance is taken based on the
complaint and evidences brought before the Court by the
complainant. It is also submitted that from perusal of the
complaint, it would manifest that the same does not even
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2524 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
remotely suggest that the witnesses of the complaint were also
present at the place of occurrence when the occurrence is
alleged to have taken place, but then, based on their evidence
cognizance has been taken.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellant, but for the order of cognizance, as such,
the appeal is disposed off with a direction to the appellant to
surrender before the learned trial Court on or before 12.02.2026
and the learned trial Court on the same day shall consider and
dispose of the case keeping in mind the fact that complaint
petition does not even remotely suggest that the witnesses were
not present at the place of occurrence.
7. The order has been passed in presence of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…