Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Charan Hembram @ Ramu Pradhan @ Majhi HasdaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the court found sufficient material linking the appellant to the offences and considered the gravity of the crime.

Summary

The appellant, Charan Hembram, was charged with sexual assault under several IPC sections (341, 342, 323, 325, 376(D), 120(B)) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He filed an application for anticipatory bail, claiming he was falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail. The High Court examined the investigation records and found sufficient material linking the appellant to the alleged crimes. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal. The judgment clarified that its observations are limited to the bail application and do not prejudice any later stage of the criminal proceedings.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the appellant is alleged to have committed sexual assault under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
  • Whether the material on record is sufficient to connect the appellant to the offences for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • sexual assault
  • SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
  • Indian Penal Code
  • bail jurisprudence
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2639 of 2024
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 Charan Hembram @ Ramu Pradhan @ Majhi Hasda S/O Late Ramsai
                 Hembram R/O Ward no 15 Sitalpur Purabdangi P.S Paharkatta, Distt-
                 Kishanganj, Bihar-855117

                                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Ms. X W/o- Sanjay Murmu Village- Garam Khuda, Gram Panchayat-
                 Koltha, Ps- Paharkatha Dist- Kishanganj

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Ms. Usha Kumari 1
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   12-03-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the

                   learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

                               2. This appeal is filed against the order dated

                   03.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1-

                   cum-Special Judge, Kishanganj, in connection with Kishanganj

                   (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30/2017, registered under Sections 341,

                   342, 323, 325, 376(D), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By

                   the impugned order, the petitioner's application for anticipatory

                   bail was dismissed.

                               3. The allegation against the appellant is that he, along

                   with five others, committed sexual assault upon the victim,
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2639 of 2024(6) dt.12-03-2026
                                                         2/2




                      allegedly one by one.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

                      appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and no offence

                      under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case and

                      therefore the application of the anticipatory bail is maintainable.

                                   5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently

                      opposed the prayer of the appellants.

                                   6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and

                      have gone through the records of the case. Sufficient material

                      has come during the investigation to connect the appellant with

                      the crime.

                                   7. Considering the nature and the gravity of the

                      offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of

                      anticipatory bail to the appellant in the present case.

                                   8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                                   9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made

                      herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application

                      and shall not prejudice the case of the appellant at any

                      subsequent stage of the proceedings.



                                                               (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.