Patna High Court
Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamalesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to appellant Kamlesh Kumar but granted anticipatory bail to appellant Shubhkla Devi.
Summary
The appellants, Kamlesh Kumar and his mother Shubhkla Devi, appealed against the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications in a case filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several IPC offences. The complaint alleged that Kamlesh married Veenu Kumari, a Scheduled Caste woman, under false pretences, subsequently torturing her, assaulting her, and stealing jewellery worth Rs. 2,00,000. The appellants argued that the allegations were vague, that they were falsely implicated, and that there was no specific charge against the mother. The court examined the specific allegation of marriage, physical relationship, and subsequent torture against Kamlesh and found it sufficient to deny him anticipatory bail, while noting the absence of any direct allegation against the mother and her advanced age. Consequently, the court denied bail to Kamlesh but granted anticipatory bail to Shubhkla, ordering a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and partially allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant Kamlesh Kumar is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in view of the specific allegations against him.
- Whether the appellant Shubhkla Devi, being the mother-in-law, can be granted anticipatory bail despite the broader family involvement in the case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 376, 504, 506
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act
- caste based violence
- IPC offences
- marital dispute
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2820 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2023 Thana- SC/ST District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamalesh Kumar S/O Ramchandra Yadav
2. Shubhkla Devi W/O Ramchandra Yadav
Both are R/O Village-Bagdha, P.S-Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Veenu Kumari D/O Ganga Mochi R/O Village- Ekangarsarai, P.S-
Ekengarsarai, Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Girish Chandra Jha
For the State : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel
for the respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. An order, dated 25.06.2025, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VI -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Nalanda,
at Biharsharif, in A.B.P. No. 1053 of 2025, is under
challenge in the present appeal preferred under Section
14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the
anticipatory bail application of the appellants in
connection with SC/ST Police Station Case No. 50 of
2023, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 323/324/504/506/376 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2820 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s)(w) (ii)/3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint -cum- First
Information Report of Veenu Kumari, a member of
Scheduled Caste community, is that the appellant no. 1
solemnized marriage with the respondent no. 2 on the
pretext of being of same caste and established physical
relationship with her. After sometime, the appellants,
along with others, started torturing the respondent no. 2
due to her caste, assaulted her and snatched her jewellery,
worth Rs. 2,00,000/-.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely
been implicated in this case merely to pressurize the
appellant no. 1 to marry with the respondent no. 2. The
appellant no. 2 is the mother of appellant no. 1 and is
aged about 62 years. There is no specific allegation
against the appellants and the allegations are general and
omnibus in nature and all the family members of the
appellants have been made accused in this case.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2820 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
2 vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that
the appellant no.1 and the respondent no. 2 have
solemnized love marriage, but after their marriage, the
appellant no. 1, along with others, used to torture her by
taking her caste. The appellants also snatched away her
belongings and later on ousted her. There is direct
allegation against the appellant no. 1 of establishing
physical relationship with her.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the materials on record and the fact that
there is direct allegation against the appellant no. 1 of
marrying the Opposite Party No. 2, establishing physical
relationship with her and later on, ousted her from her
matrimonial house, I am not inclined to grant the
appellant no. 1 privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly the prayer for bail of the appellant no. 1 is
rejected.
8. So far as the appellant no. 2 is concerned, she is the
alleged mother-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2, there
is no direct or specific allegation against her and she is 62
years old, I am inclined to grant the appellant no. 2
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2820 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
9. Let the appellant no. 2, above named, in the event of
arrest or surrender before the learned District Court, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-
VI -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Nalanda, at Biharsharif,
in connection with SC/ST Police Station Case No. 50 of
2023.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.