Patna High Court
Rishikesh Ram @ Rishikesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the specific allegation against the appellants in the Section 183 statement precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellants, Rishikesh Ram and Abhishek Ram, were charged in a case where, on 10 October 2024, armed assailants fired at the informant's residence, killing the informant's son and injuring others. They sought anticipatory bail under Sections 103(1), 109, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but the Special Judge rejected the bail application. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the informant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS that specifically named the appellants as participants in the firing. The appellants argued they were falsely implicated and that no SC/ST offence was made out. The Patna High Court, noting the specific allegation in the Section 183 statement, declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita specifically implicates the accused.
- Whether the conduct alleged constitutes an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to bail under Sections 103(1), 109, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 183, 3(5)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- SC/ST Act
- Section 183 statement
- specific allegation
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2975 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-562 Year-2024 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
1. Rishikesh Ram @ Rishikesh Kumar S/o- Raj Kishore Ram @ Sadhu Ram
R/o- Bibipur, P.S- Gaurichak, Dist- Patna
2. Abhishek Ram @ Abhishek Kumar S/o- Raj Kishore Ram @ Sadhu Ram
R/o- Bibipur, P.S- Gaurichak, Dist- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajeev Paswan S/o- Surendra Paswan R/o- Bibipur, P.S- Gaurichak, Dist-
Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State as also learned counsel
for the informant. Perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Exclusive
Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna whereby the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants in connection with Gaurichak
PS Case No. 562 of 2024 instituted under Sections 103(1), 109
& 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the
Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2975 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
10.10.2024 all the named accused persons, armed with firearms,
came to the door of the informant, abused him and opened
indiscriminate firing. During the firing, a bullet hit the
informant’s son on his forehead causing his death, while Sunita
Devi sustained a gunshot injury on her right arm and Kaushal
Paswan narrowly escaped injury. After committing the offence
and threatening the family members with dire consequences, the
accused persons fled from the place of occurrence.
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
appellant 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 bear no criminal antecedent each.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellants. It is mainly submitted that injured in her statement
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2975 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, has specifically stated
that it is the appellants along with other co-accused, who have
fired, hence, appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, there being specific allegation against the appellants
in the statement of the injured recorded under Section 183 of the
BNSS, 2023, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellants
on anticipatory bail. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…