Patna High Court
Vivek RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted as the FIR does not specifically implicate the appellants and they have a clean antecedent.
Summary
The appellants, three brothers, were charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting the informant during a dispute over a boundary wall. The informant’s FIR described a group assault but did not specifically name the appellants or detail their individual acts. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, had clean antecedents, and that the allegations were vague and omnibus. They filed an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act seeking anticipatory bail, challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant it. The Patna High Court held that the lack of specific allegations and the appellants’ clean record warranted anticipatory bail, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted bail on the stipulated conditions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the FIR contains specific allegations sufficient to deny anticipatory bail to the accused.
- Whether the appellants’ clean antecedent and alleged false implication justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 126(2), 190, 191(1), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- assault
- boundary dispute
- criminal procedure
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.272 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Vivek Ram S/O Chamru Ram Resident of Village- Rampur Tola Narghara
Musahri, P.S.- Surjagarha, District- Lakhisarai.
2. Ramvilas Ram S/o Chamru Ram Resident of Village- Rampur Tola Narghara
Musahri, P.S.- Surjagarha, District- Lakhisarai.
3. Bipin Ram S/o Bechan Ram Resident of Village- Rampur Tola Narghara
Musahri, P.S.- Surjagarha, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Dukhan Manjhi S/O Bauku Manjhi R/O Vill and P.O.- Rampur, P.S.-
Surajgarha, Dist.- Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Binay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Sadanand Paswan and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
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 16.10.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1206 of 2025 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.272 of 2026(3) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 191(1), 190, 126(2), 115, 109, 352,
351(2) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Learned counsel submits that appellants are
persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that
27.08.2026, he was constructing boundary wall on his land
when at 01:00 P.M., nine named accused persons including the
appellants came and Chamru along with Bechan assaulted by
rod causing injury on head, further Mithlesh and Vivek by rod
assaulted Mantu causing injury on right leg, thereafter Ram
Pravesh and Sharwan assaulted Krishna with rod causing injury
on head, thereafter accused persons threatened not to construct
the wall.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of of the
appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that on account of dispute relating to construction of
boundary wall, an altercation took place in which both side
assaulted each other. It is further submitted that from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assaulted is alleged against the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.272 of 2026(3) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
and even allegation of abuse is general and omnibus.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants but then are not in a position
to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants that no specific allegation of assault and
abuse is alleged against the appellants.
6. 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.
7. 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.