Patna High Court
Ramu Mahto @ Ramashish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, Ramu Mahto and Bhundul Mahto, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several sections of the Indian Penal Code for alleged caste-based assault on 16‑03‑2025. They contended that the FIR was filed five days after the incident, that the allegations were vague and omnibus, and that they were falsely implicated. The Special Judge had refused anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined whether the allegations were sufficiently specific to deny bail and considered the delay in FIR registration. Finding the accusations general and the delay prejudicial to the accused, the Court set aside the refusal and granted anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds and sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in the present case.
- Whether the allegations against the appellants are specific enough to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR affects the propriety of the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- general allegations
- FIR delay
- Section 14-A
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2937 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Ramu Mahto @ Ramashish Kumar son of Rajendra Mahto village-
Bhusunda, Ps- Muffasil, Dist- Gaya
2. Bhundul Mahto @ Devashish Mahto Son of Rajendra mahto village-
Bhusunda, Ps- Muffasil, Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jira Devi wife of Rajesh Choudhary village- Bhusunda, Ps- Muffasil, Dist-
Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mrigendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1,Spl. PP
Mr. Vikram Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1 and 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 20-6-2025 in A.B.P. No. 160 of 2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, SC/ST in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 126(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2937 of 2025(3) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
115(2), 303(2), 351(2), and 352 of the BNS as well as Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 16-3-2025 at 7:30 pm, 7 named accused persons
including the appellants came and abused by taking caste name
and Bhushan along with Tenni assaulted his son Suraj by rod
causing injury, further accused persons pelted stones causing
injury on his nose, it is next alleged that informant had gone to
Muffasil PS for instituting an FIR, but then the same was not
registered hence the FIR was instituted at SC/ST PS.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is 16-
3-2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 22-3-2025. It is
further submitted that if Muffasil PS did not institute an FIR
nothing prevented the informant from approaching the SC/ST
PS promptly or within a reasonable time, but then the FIR came
to be instituted after five days which also casts an aspersion on
the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that allegation of
abuse is general and omnibus in nature and no specific
allegation of assault is alleged against the appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2937 of 2025(3) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
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 allegations against the appellants
are general and omnibus in nature.
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 with respect to the appellants.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…