Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar @ Pintu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Pintu Kumar, appealed against the order of the Special Judge-cum-Special Court (SC/ST) that denied his anticipatory bail in a case involving the death of his husband. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others assaulted the deceased, leading to his death, and invoked Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 together with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the injury resulted from a fall, and that no specific caste-based insult was made, thus no SC/ST offence. The State argued that the appellant was named in the FIR with specific allegations, warranting denial of bail. The High Court, considering the gravity of the alleged offence and the specific allegations, refused to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant constitute a specific offence under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant's conduct amounts to an offence warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based offence
- criminal appeal
- special court
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- grave offence
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2680 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2025 Thana- MESKAUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Singh S/O Jairam Singh Village- Dhobi Bisiyait, P.S.-
Meskaur, Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jayanti Devi W/O Late Satyendra Manjhi @ Sabinder Manjhi Village-
Dhobni, P.S.- Meskaur, Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by learned Exclusive
Special Judge-cum-Special Court SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Nawada whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail
of the appellant in connection with Meskaur P.S. Case No. 96 of
2025 under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 09.05.2025,
the accused brought her injured husband home at midnight,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2680 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
stating that he had fallen into a ditch and received treatment at a
clinic. The next morning, when he complained of severe head
pain, she took him to the PHC where he was declared dead.
Believing the explanation to be false, the informant suspects that
the accused persons assaulted her husband, causing his death.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted
that no specific allegation of assault has been attributed against
the appellant rather the same is general and omnibus in nature,
so far as injury is concerned, the deceased sustained the injury
while he fell into the ditch. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant has not taken the caste name
of the informant in public view. Hence, no offence under the
provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The appellant
has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant in public
view. The appellant has got no criminal antecedent. Other co-
accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 27.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 3755 of 2025.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant
and submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR and there is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2680 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
specific allegation levelled against the appellant. Hence, the
appellant does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, specific allegation as also nature and gravity of the
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the appellant at this juncture.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…