Patna High Court
Rajesh KishanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, setting aside the Special Judge's order denying it.
Summary
The appellant, Rajesh Kishan, a CDPO in Muzaffarpur, was charged under IPC sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 354(b) and under Sections 3(i), 3(iii), 3(vi) and 3(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly harassing and abusing an Aanganwari Sevika, Sudha Kumari, on 25 May 2022. The appellant contended that the complainant had obtained her job through a forged certificate, was subsequently terminated, and that the complaint was filed on 2 June 2022 with malice after an order directing his replacement was issued. The State and the second respondent argued that the offences were cognizable and bail should be denied. The High Court examined the circumstances, noting the timing of the complaint and the findings of the original and appellate authorities that the complainant’s appointment was fraudulent. Concluding that the complaint was motivated to pressure the appellant, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, set aside the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail, and directed release on bail with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the complaint was filed with malice and therefore does not justify denial of bail.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act warrants refusal of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354(b), 504, 506, 509
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste harassment
- IPC offences
- abuse of process
- forged certificate
- CDPO
- Aanganwari Sevika
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2945 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2022 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Rajesh Kishan son of Ramchandra Prasad Village- Bhawani Bigha Ps-
Nawada Town Dist- Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudha Kumari wife of Amar Kumar Village- Amrakh Ps- Maniyari Dist-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Bipin Chandra, Advocte
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Sp.PP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate
Mr. Ritwaj Raman, Advocte
Ms. Pankhuri, Advocate
Mr. Anand Abhishek, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and and learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. An order, dated 22.05.2024, passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur, in ABP No. 798
of 2024, is under challenge in the present appeal preferred under
Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the anticipatory
bail application of the appellant in connection with Complaint
Case No. 80 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2945 of 2024(6) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
Code and Section 3 (i) (iii) (vi) (xii) of the Schedule
Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been
rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 02.06.2022, the
complainant, who is an Aanganwari Sevika, alleged that on
25.05.2022 at about 10:30 a.m., the appellant entered the
Aanganwari Centre, abused her in filthy language, physically
harassed her, and also abused her by taking her caste name,
stating that she should not be working at the Aanganwari
Centre.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been working as C.D.P.O. at Kudhani,
Muzaffarpur. The Aaganwari Centre where the complainant is
working comes under the jurisdiction of the appellant. The
complainant had got the job as Aanganwari Sevika on the basis
of a forged certificate, and the then C.D.P.O., vide Memo No.
928 dated 04.12.2019, terminated her services. The complainant
preferred Appeal Case No. 11 of 2020 before the D.P.O.,
Muzaffarpur, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2022,
with a direction to appoint one Jyoti Kumari in place of the
complainant. Immediately thereafter, with malice and mala fide
intention, the present complaint was filed by the complainant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2945 of 2024(6) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
on 02.06.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as
well as O.P. No. 2 submits that the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence including offences under Sections
323, 504, 506, 509 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 (i) (iii) (vi) (xii) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
6. I have learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the materials on record.
7. It appears that the appellant has been working as
C.D.P.O., Kudhani, Muzaffarpur. The order dated 01.06.2022
passed by the D.P.O., Muzaffarpur, specifically directed the
appellant to take steps for appointment of Jyoti Kumari in place
of the complainant, who had earlier been selected through Aam
Sabha. Both the Original Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority consistently recorded a finding that the complainant
had secured appointment on the basis of a forged certificate. Just
after passing of the order by the Appellate Authority on
01.06.2022, it appears that in order to put pressure upon the
appellant, the complainant has filed the present complaint on
02.06.2022. Considering the aforesaid discussions, I am
inclined to grant the appellant privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2945 of 2024(6) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
8. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order,
dated 22.05.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, Muzaffarpur, in ABP No. 798 of 2024, is set aside.
9. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Muzaffarpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 80 of
2022, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…