Patna High Court
Usha DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail, setting aside the lower court’s order denying bail.
Summary
The appellants Usha Devi, Jyoti Ram and Guddu Ram were accused in a 2018 FIR of assaulting and caste‑based abuse against informant Panchalo Devi over a disputed Gairmajarua land. The FIR alleged offences under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants argued that the FIR was filed to further a land dispute and that the alleged caste abuse was not public or intended to humiliate. The lower court had rejected their anticipatory bail application under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the allegations and the alleged abuse of process, granted anticipatory bail, set aside the lower court’s order, and directed bail on furnishing bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the serious nature of the allegations.
- Whether the FIR was filed as an abuse of process arising from a land dispute.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse, lacking public humiliation, warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 447, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste harassment
- land dispute
- abuse of process
- IPC offences
- CrPC bail provisions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2571 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2018 Thana- SC/ST District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Usha Devi W/o- Ravindra Ram Village- Mahadev Nagar Ward No- 22 PS-
Sheikhpura District- Sheikhpura
2. Jyoti Ram @ Jyotish Kumar S/o- Dineshwar Ram Village- Mahadev Nagar
Ward No- 22 PS-Sheikhpura District- Sheikhpura
3. Guddu Ram S/o- Ravindra Ram Village- Mahadev Nagar Ward No- 22 PS-
Sheikhpura District- Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Panchalo Devi W/o- Rambali Ram Village- Mahadev Nagar Ward No- 22
PS-Sheikhpura District- Sheikhpura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : None
For the Informant : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advicate
Mr. Ravikant, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the informant.
2. An order, dated 12.06.2025, passed by learned District
& Additional Sessions Judge, 1st-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Sheikhpura, in ABP No. 353 of 2025, is under challenge in the
present appeal preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellants in
connection with Sheikhpura SC/ST Police Station Case No. 30 of
2018, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2571 of 2025(6) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
447, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) (s),
3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been
rejected.
3. The prosecution case as per the First Information
Report, on 12.07.2018 at about 08:30 A.M., while the informant was
at her home, the appellants, along with co-accused persons armed
with lathi, rod and pistol, arrived there and started abusing her by
calling her caste name. When the informant protested, the co-accused
Ajay Ram assaulted her with the butt of pistol, causing head injury. It
has further been stated in the FIR that there is a Gairmajarua land in
front of the informant’s house, on which she has been residing for
many years and the appellants are having bad eyes on the said land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
present FIR has been lodged in abuse of the process of law due to
land dispute. The Gairmajarua land, which was being used as a rasta,
has been encroached upon by the informant and her family members,
and they have constructed a house over it, which was being protested
by the appellants and other villagers. It is further submitted that the
co-villagers have also filed a public petition before the police
authorities stating therein that the informant has filed a false and
frivolous case in which the appellants have been falsely implicated.
There is a dispute between the informant and the appellants regarding
the said Gairmajarua land. It is further submitted that the FIR was
lodged in 2018 and the appellants had filed a quashing petition
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2571 of 2025(6) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
before this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 16628 of 2020, which was
disposed vide order dated 29.04.2025, granting liberty to the
appellants to raise all the grounds at the time of framing of charge.
Due to the pendency of the said quashing application before this
Court, the appellants did not seek anticipatory and/or regular bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that,
after investigation, the police have submitted the charge-sheet and
cognizance has been taken against the appellants. It is further
submitted that the FIR was lodged in 2018 and the appellants have
approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail after a delay of
seven years.
6. No-one appears for the State.
7. Regards being had to submission made by the parties
taking into consideration the nature of allegation against and the fact
that the present FIR has been lodged due to land dispute between the
parties, and the allegation of abusing by caste name was not made in
full public view or with the intention to humiliate the informant and
her family members, I am inclined to grant the appellants privilege of
anticipatory bail.
8. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order, dated
12.06.2025, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge,
1st-cum-Special Judge of SC/ST Act, Sheikhpura, in ABP No. 353 of
2025, is set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2571 of 2025(6) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
9. Let the appellants, above named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the Court below within four 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st-cum-
Special Judge of SC/ST Act, Sheikhpura, in connection with
Sheikhpura SC/ST Police Station Case No. 30 of 2018, subject to the
condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…