Patna High Court
FARMAN ALI @ MD. FARMANversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside, with bail granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, eight individuals from Dogachhi village, were charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly setting fire to an informant's hut. They contended that the allegations were false, arising from a land dispute, and that they had previously been acquitted in similar cases. The appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act challenged the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail. The High Court, after hearing counsel, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and set aside the lower court's order, thereby allowing the appeal. The appeal was also withdrawn with respect to one appellant who died during the pendency.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants despite charges under IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail by the trial court was justified.
- Effect of the death of appellant No.2 on the pending appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 427, 435, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(i)(r)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- land dispute
- false implication
- IPC offences
- Section 438 CrPC
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2957 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2023 Thana- THAKURGANJ District- Kishanganj
======================================================
1. FARMAN ALI @ MD. FARMAN SON OF MD. JAINUDDIN RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT -
KISHANGANJ
2. MD. FAZLUR RAHMAN @ MD. FAZLUDDIN SON OF ZAINUDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ,
DISTRICT - KISHANGANJ
3. RAZZAQUE ALAM @ KUZA SON OF JAINUDDIN RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT -
KISHANGANJ
4. MANGLU @ MUKHTAR ALAM @ MUKHTAR SON OF JAINUDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ,
DISTRICT - KISHANGANJ
5. MD. LAL BAHADUR @ SIKANDAR @ LAL BAHADUR SON OF
JAINUDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. -
THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT - KISHANGANJ
6. MD. KHALIQUE @ BHUTKU SON OF JAINUDDIN RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT -
KISHANGANJ
7. SUKRUDDIN @ MD. SUKRUDDIN SON OF JAINUDDIN RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE - DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT -
KISHANGANJ
8. RAFIQUE ALAM @ MD. RAFIQUE SON OF NASIRUDDIN RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE - RAJIBASTI CHHAITAL, P.S. - THAKURGANJ,
DISTRICT - KISHANGANJ
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. KALO DEVI WIFE OF SOMBHU MOCHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -
DOGACHHI, P.S. - THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT - KISHANGANJ
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Arun, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2957 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2026
2/4
Special P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset,
seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with respect to
appellant no.2, namely, Md. Fazlur Rahman @ Md. Fazluddin
as appellant no.2 died during pendency of the appeal.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. The instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn so far
as appellant no.2, namely, Md. Fazlur Rahman @ Md.
Fazluddin is concerned.
5. 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 22.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Kishanganj in connection
with Thakurganj P.S. Case No.235 of 2023, registered under
Sections 341, 323, 506, 435 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as Section 3(i)(r)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have antecedents of three
cases but then all the cases were filed from the side of the
informant only and in all the cases appellants have been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2957 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2026
3/4
acquitted after trial. It is next submitted that informant alleges
that accused persons put the informant’s hut on fire, as a result
of which, all grains and clothes kept inside the house were burnt
to ashes.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that a land dispute is brewing in
between the parties and, as such, the informant in order to
coerce the appellants into submission, is implicating them in
false criminal cases. It is further submitted that though in the
FIR, it is alleged that it were the appellants who put the hut of
the informant on fire, as a result of which, grains and clothes
kept inside the hut was burnt to ashes but then during the course
of investigation, it transpires that the hut was not put on fire
rather the cowshed in front of the hut was set ablaze but then it
is submitted that it were not the appellants who had committed
the occurrence.
8. The learned Special P.P. for the State and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the
appeal and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that the piece of land was given to the
informant by Bhudan Committee but then the appellants got the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2957 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2026
4/4
said land registered in their name and, as such, they intend to
oust the informant from her settled land, as such, they keep on
harassing the informant on which the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants submits that since there is a land
dispute, as a result of which, false cases are being instituted.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, let
appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the learned Trial Court 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 Thakurganj P.S. Case No.235 of 2023, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…