Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2662 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- TILAUTHU District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
           1.     Jitendra Kumar S/O Late Surendra Singh R/O Vill.- Mirjapur, P.S.- Tilauthu,
                  Dist.- Rohtas.
           2.    Sonam Kumar S/O Vijay Singh R/O Vill.- Mirjapur, P.S.- Tilauthu, Dist.-
                 Rohtas.
           3.    Niket Singh S/O Late Sanjay Singh R/O Vill.- Mirjapur, P.S.- Tilauthu,
                 Dist.- Rohtas.

                                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Bhola Ram S/O Shiv Kumar Ram R/O Vill.- Mirjapur, P.O.- Bhadokhar,
                 P.S.- Tilauthu, Dist.- Rohtas.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
                 For the Informant       :        Ms. Alka Verma, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   30-06-2026                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the

                   learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.I for the State and the

                   learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant Ms. Alka

                   Verma.

                               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 06.06.2025 in connection with Tilauthu P.S. Case

                   No.116 of 2025 passed by the learned District and Additional
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2662 of 2025(6) dt.30-06-2026
                                             2/4




          Sessions Judge-17-cum-Special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act,

          Rohtas, registered under Sections 298, 299, 352, 350(2) and

          3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3(ii)(va) of the

          SC/ST Act.

                       3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          appellant no. 1 has antecedent of one case which was filed

          subsequent to filing of the instant appeal and appellant no. 2 and

          3 are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges

          that on 24.04.2025 at 12.30 P.M. he came to know that flag

          hoisted on eve of birthday of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar was

          burn, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence along with

          others and saw the burnt flag and when he asked the appellants

          why the flag was burn, they abused him by taking caste name

          and said that they have burnt the flag.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

          informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence nor he

          discloses that how he came to know that who burnt the flag. It is

          further submitted that had the informant been an eyewitness to

          the occurrence then perhaps the appellants would not have been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2662 of 2025(6) dt.30-06-2026
                                             3/4




          entitled for anticipatory bail but then the informant alleges that

          on asking the appellants, they said that they have burnt the flag.

          It is thus submitted that the same is an exaggerated allegation. It

          is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is

          true without admitting then whether the appellants would have

          accepted their guilt even if they had committed the occurrence.

          It is next submitted that allegation of abuse also is general and

          omnibus in nature as it does not appear probable that all accused

          in one go would have abused the informant by caste name.

                       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          appellants next submits that appellants were given notice under

          Section 35(3) BNSS and they cooperated with the police during

          the course of investigation and the police never felt the need of

          arresting the appellants but then charge sheet came to be

          submitted, based on which, cognizance has been taken, hence

          appellants apprehend arrest since offence under the SC/ST is a

          non-bailable offence.

                       6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal

          but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the

          learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that

          informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence nor he
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2662 of 2025(6) dt.30-06-2026
                                                          4/4




                       discloses that how he came to know that it were the appellants,

                       who had burnt the flag.

                                    7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

                       Court was inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to

                       the appellants but since cognizance has been taken as such the

                       appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to

                       surrender before the learned trial court on 16.07.2026, in the

                       event, if the appellants surrender before the learned trial court

                       on 16.07.2026, the learned trial court shall consider and dispose

                       of the case on the same day, keeping in mind that observations

                       of this Court, as recorded hereinabove.

                                    8. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with

                       aforesaid observations.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T