Patna High Court
Siya Devi @ Shiya DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The notice was validly served and the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail; the impugned order refusing bail is set aside.
Summary
The appellants, three women related to a man named Shiv Shankar, were implicated in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC sections for alleged involvement in the rape and subsequent assault of a neighbour. They applied for anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act after a Special Judge refused the prayer. The High Court examined the validity of a notice served to the informant's sister‑in‑law and, relying on the police report, held the notice to be validly served. Noting the appellants' clean antecedents, their gender, and the argument that they were falsely implicated to coerce the informant’s family, the Court found the allegations insufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, set aside the Special Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The validity of the notice served to the informant's sister‑in‑law.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the serious charges.
- Whether the allegations against the appellants constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail.
- Whether the Special Judge's order refusing anticipatory bail should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 366, 376, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- service of notice
- false implication
- women accused
- rape allegation
- IPC offences
- Section 482
- scheduled castes
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2618 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2023 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Siya Devi @ Shiya Devi W/O Tuntun Sahani R/O Village Bhudkudwa,P.S.
Rajepur, Distt-East Champaran
2. Geeta Devi W/O Mahesh Sahani R/O Village Bhudkudwa,P.S. Rajepur,
Distt-East Champaran
3. Prabhawati Devi W/O Jaylal Sahani R/O Village Bhudkudwa,P.S. Rajepur,
Distt-East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shobh Devi W/O Chandan Paswan R/O Village Bhud kudawa,P.S. Rajepur,
Distt-East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms.Ranjana Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
10 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1.
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 13-2-2024 in A.B.P. No. 641 of 2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, East Champaran at
Motihari in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 156 of 2023
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2618 of 2024(10) dt.12-05-2026
2/4
341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(r)
(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
from perusal of the office report dated 30-1-2025, it would
manifest that the same records that Superintendent of Police,
East Champaran vide his letter dated 6-12-2024 reported that
notice has been received by sister-in-law (gotni) of the
respondent No. 2. It is next submitted that though a jointness
application was required to be filed but then the same has not
been filed for some pressing reasons. It is further submitted that
since sister-in-law of the informant received the notice as
reported by the Superintendent of Police, the notice be deemed
to be validly served.
4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, the notice is deemed to be
validly served.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and are women and
the informant alleges that her neighbours Shiv Shankar took her
away in a vehicle on the pretext of getting his child treated by a
doctor on 19-6-2023 and took her to a lonely place and raped
her for 16 days, thereafter family members of Shiv Shankar, ie,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2618 of 2024(10) dt.12-05-2026
3/4
appellants came and took her back to her home on 4-7-2023,
thereafter she disclosed the occurrence to her husband and
father-in-law, accordingly they went to the house of Shiv
Shankar when all accused abused her husband by taking caste
name and also assaulted him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
occurrence is said to have commenced on 19-6-2023 and the
same continued till 4-7-2023 and thereafter the instant FIR came
to be instituted on 8-7-2023. It is also submitted that informant
alleges that Shiv Shankar in the name of getting her child
treated by a doctor on 19-6-2023 took her to a lonely place and
raped her for 16 days but then it is submitted that it absolutely
does not stand to reason that if the informant was missing from
the house for 16 days why no FIR came to be instituted either
by her husband or family members rather when the informant
came back the instant FIR came to be instituted which also casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further
submitted that as far as appellants are concerned, the allegation
against them of abuse and assault is general and omnibus in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2618 of 2024(10) dt.12-05-2026
4/4
nature. It is also submitted that since appellants are related to
Shiv Shankar with whom informant and her family members are
having dispute as such the appellants also came to be implicated
only with a view to coerce other family members into
submission and this perhaps explains why informant despite
receiving notices chooses not to appear and contest.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.