Patna High Court
Arti Devi @ Arti KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Arti Devi and her brothers Uday and Vijai Sharma, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting the informant and misappropriating furniture. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. In the appeal, the appellants argued they have clean records, the FIR was lodged more than 29 days after the alleged incident, and the case was politically motivated as the informant’s husband had filed a complaint against a municipal mayor. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Patna High Court, considering the delay, alleged false implication, and the appellants’ clean antecedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions and set aside the lower court’s order, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 B.N.S.S. in a case under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the delay of more than 29 days in filing the FIR and the claim of false implication justify granting bail.
- Whether alleged political vendetta influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354B, 379, 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- political vendetta
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2801 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Arti Devi @ Arti Kumari wife of Uday Sharma R/o Village- Chakdah Ward
No 21, PS -Rajnagar Distt -Madhubani
2. Uday Sharma @ Uday Kumar Sharma son of Late Raj Kishore Sharma R/o
Village- Chakdah Ward No 21, PS -Rajnagar Distt -Madhubani
3. Vijai Sharma @ Vijai Kumar Sharma Son of Late Raj Kishore Shrama R/o
Village- Chakdah Ward No 21, PS -Rajnagar Distt -Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Janki Devi Wife of Kari Paswan R/o village- Kaitola, PS - Town, Dist-
Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and no one appears 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 19.03.2025 in A.B.P. No. 449 of 2025 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Madhubani in connection with G.R. No. 06 of 2024 arising
out of SC/ST Madhubani P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024 registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2801 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
under Sections 341, 323, 420, 379, 504, 506 and 354B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i) and 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and appellant no. 1 is a woman and the informant
alleges that she, on 02.12.2023, gave an amount of Rs.40,000/-
by way of advance to the appellants no. 2 and 3 for making
furniture and the consideration of which was settled at
Rs.75,000/-. Further, on 10.12.2023, when she went to the shop
of the appellants to get the furniture, the informant found the
shop missing, thus, went to the house of the appellants and
asked them to give the furniture or returned the amount on
which the accused abused and assaulted the husband of the
informant and Arti Devi snatched her Mangalsutra.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that the date of occurrence is
10.12.2023 and the FIR came to be instituted on 10.01.2024,
i.e., after a delay of more than 29 days which casts an aspersion
on the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that husband
of the informant works for sitting Mayor of the Municipal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2801 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
Corporation, namely, Arun Roy and the appellant no. 2 had
given a complaint before the Station House Officer, Madbubani
Town Police Station on 16.12.2023 for instituting an FIR against
the Mayor and had also sent a representation by registered post
to the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani on account of which
the instant false case came to be instituted.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. Considering the submissions, let the appellants,
above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, 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 in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.