Patna High Court
Sarita Kumari @ Sarita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Sarita Kumari and Chandan Ray, appealed against the Special Judge's order rejecting their anticipatory bail in a case under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with unknown persons, had abused the informant on the basis of caste, assaulted him, forced his signature at gunpoint, and attacked his family with weapons. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that no specific allegation of using the informant's caste name in public was made against them, and that they had no intention to disgrace the informant. The court observed that there were no specific allegations against the appellants and considered the period of their custody, deciding to set aside the lower court's order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellants despite charges under the BNSS and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the prosecution has made specific allegations against the appellants under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the period of custody and lack of specific charges justify granting anticipatory bail.
- Application of Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 303(2), 308(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste-based violence
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2879 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Devi W/O Chandan Ray @ Chandan Roy Resident
of Village- Shivshakti Nagar, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
2. Chandan Ray @Chandan Roy S/O Suraj Narayan Jha @ Surya Narayan Ray
Resident of Village- Shivshaki Nagar, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manindara Kaushal S/O Late Gulai Ram Resident of Village- Shiv shakti
Nagar, P.S.- Maranga, District- Purnea
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Musowir, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Purnea whereby the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants in connection with Maranga
PS Case No. 31 of 2025 instituted under Sections 117(2),
115(2), 308(2), 318(4), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352 & 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) &
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that all the FIR named
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2879 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
accused persons along with 5-6 unknown miscreants abused the
informant by caste name, assaulted him, got his signature at
gunpoint and on the direction of co-accused, Manju Devi,
attacked him and his family with iron rod, dabiya, lathi and
danda, dragged his wife by the neck and tore her clothes.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. There is no specific allegation against the
appellants, rather the same is general and omnibus in nature.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
appellants have 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 them. The appellants have no intention
to disgrace the image of the informant in public view. The
appellants have one criminal antecedent each. Similar co-
accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 03.07.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1424 of 2025.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellants.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, there being no specific allegation against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2879 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
appellants and the period of custody undergone by the
appellants, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 02.06.2025
passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Purnea is
hereby set aside.
7. Let the appellants, above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) each 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 Maranga PS Case
No. 31 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.,
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…