Patna High Court
Amarjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that no specific allegation of caste abuse under the SC/ST (POA) Act was made and therefore granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Amarjeet Kumar, appealed against the rejection of his anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that he had a consensual relationship with the informant, Maya Kumari, which later turned into a false promise of marriage, leading to accusations of caste-based abuse and cheating. The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, there was no coercion or specific caste abuse as required under the Act, and he possessed a clean antecedent. The court examined the FIR and found no specific allegation of caste abuse or forced physical relationship, concluding that the statutory requirements for an offence under the SC/ST Act were not met. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order, granted anticipatory bail with conditions, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act in the present facts.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific allegation of caste-based abuse as required by the Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64(1)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- caste abuse
- false promise of marriage
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2754 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Amarjeet Kumar, Son of Late Badri Prasad Gupta @ Badri Sao, Resident of
Digha Canal, P.O. and P.S. - Digha, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Maya Kumari, Daughter of Lal Babu Das, Resident of Village - Digha,
Jamakharji, P.S. - Digha, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2 and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual
mode.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 [in short the SC/ST (POA) Act] against the rejection of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026
2/6
prayer for bail vide order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court
(Sadar), Patna in A.B.P. No. 2127 of 2025 in connection with
Digha P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025 registered for the offence(s)
under Section(s) 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.) and Section(s) 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the
informant/respondent No. 2 has alleged that she got in touch
with the accused/Amarjeet Kumar (appellant) through
Facebook and they slowly fell into love. It has further been
alleged that the informant/respondent No. 2 thereafter met with
the appellant at the NEXA Maruti Showroom at Rupaspur, where
the appellant is employed and, thereafter, they met on several
occasions and the appellant proposed to marry the
informant/respondent No. 2.
4. It has next been alleged that on 04.04.2024, the
appellant and the informant/respondent No. 2 solemnized
marriage in a hotel room and, thereafter, they indulged into
physical relationship on several occasions and almost after one
year, the appellant refused to marry the informant/respondent
No. 2 and even blocked her mobile number. It has further been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026
3/6
alleged that when the informant/respondent No. 2 went to meet
the appellant at the Maruti Showroom, she was threatened of
dire consequences and she was also abused with caste remarks.
5. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assisted by Mr.
Vijay Anand, the learned Advocate, submits that the appellant
has falsely been implicated in this case. It has been submitted
that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it would be evident that
the relationship of the appellant and the informant/respondent
No. 2 was consensual and it lasted for more than one year,
which also indicates that there was no coercion or threat on
behalf of the appellant. It has further been submitted that the
allegation of abusing the informant/respondent No. 2 by her
caste name is also vague and no specific allegation under the
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act is made out against the
appellant. It has next been submitted that the appellant had been
helping the informant/respondent No. 2 out of old acquaintance
and the said message had gone wrong with the
informant/respondent No. 2, who has lodged the present case on
false pretext of abusing her and utilizing her in the relationship
in which they were indulged. It has, thus, been submitted that
even if the allegations are taken on its face value, no case of any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026
4/6
allurement on account of false promises of marriage is made out
against the appellant and, therefore, the appellant may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail. It has lastly been submitted that
the appellant has clean antecedent.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant/respondent No. 2, referring to the counter affidavit,
has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the appellant and
has submitted that he has induced the informant/respondent No.
2 and allured her into falling in love and, thereafter, taking
advantage of her position, gained complete trust of the
informant/respondent No. 2 and by giving false promises of
marriage, established physical relationship with her. It has been
submitted that the appellant had put Sindoor on the head of the
informant/respondent No. 2 and, therefore, she had a very strong
belief that the two were married and, therefore, she made
physical relationship with the appellant and, now, when the
appellant is back tracking from his promise, it amounts to
cheating and abuse of the informant/respondent No. 2.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
State has also opposed the bail petition of the appellant.
8. Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties and taking into account the fact
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026
5/6
that there is no specific allegation of abuse against the appellant
as per the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and, thus, no case is
made out against him and also the fact that from the plain
reading of the F.I.R., it is evident that there is no assertion of
forcing the informant/respondent No. 2 into physical
relationship on the false pretext of marriage, let the appellant,
above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within
a period of four weeks from today, on his/her furnishing bail
bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court
in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors of the appellant shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The appellant shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of
the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive
occasions, without reasonable cause, or in violation of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2754 of 2025(6) dt.20-05-2026
6/6
the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the appellant will
be liable to be cancelled by the concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the appellant and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bonds. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
(v) The appellant shall in no manner threaten or try
to contact or influence the informant/respondent No. 2.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order, referred to
above, is set aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. It is made clear that the observation, if any,
made in this order, shall be of no bearing during trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Sweta/Tannu/Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.