Patna High Court
Chandrasekhar Kumar Singh @ Chandrasekhar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the FIR contains a direct allegation of the appellant’s involvement in the assault leading to death.
Summary
The appellant, Chandrasekhar Kumar Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 14‑A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in connection with a murder case (IPC Sections 302/34) arising from a caste‑based dispute. The FIR alleged that the appellant, along with co‑accused, assaulted the victim’s brother with iron rods, leading to his death. The appellant contended that he was merely an electrician, presented CCTV footage of his workplace, and argued that the FIR lacked a signature and independent witnesses. The court examined the FIR’s direct allegation of assault causing death and found it sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the FIR contains a direct allegation of participation in a murder.
- Whether the absence of a signature on the FIR and lack of independent witnesses justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- murder
- caste violence
- FIR
- evidentiary standards
- IPC 302
- Section 34
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3006 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2021 Thana- BHAGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan
======================================================
Chandrasekhar Kumar Singh @ Chandrasekhar Singh S/o- Late Triloki Singh
Resident of village- Paniyadih PS- Bhagwanpur Hat Distt-Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ramawdhesh Ram S/o- Late Babulal Ram Village- Ratanpadauli Tiwari Tola
Ps- Bhagawanpur Hat Dist- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Monisha Rathore, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Sp.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. An order, dated 06.06.2025, passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Court-Cum-Special Judge, Siwan, in ABP
No. 1374 of 2025, 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 Bhagwanpur Hat Police Station Case No. 102 of 2021
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 (2) (v) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3006 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
has been rejected.
3. As per the First Information Report dated
02.06.2020, at about 11:00 AM near the village of Paniyadih,
the informant’s son and brother were enquired on phone about
their whereabouts and upon reaching to an orchard to discuss
construction work found the appellant and other accused armed
with rods and hockey sticks; it is alleged that co-accused Nitish
Kumar questioned why they were not working in the
construction of his house and used caste-based abuse, after
which co-accused Jairam Singh purportedly directed the others
to kill the informant’s brother, and the appellant together with
the other accused assaulted him on the head, causing grievous
injury from which he subsequently died at Patna Medical
College and Hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has not committed any offence in the manner alleged.
There is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant.
There is no independent witnesses to support the alleged
incident and there is no proof that who has written the instant
FIR neither any signature of any other person is there in the FIR
nor the thumb impression of the informant is there on the FIR. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3006 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
has further been submitted that appellant was working as
Electrician at Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd., Mirganj in the district
of Gopalganj and has submitted the CCTV footage of his
working place before the investigating officer.
5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is
direct allegation made in the FIR that the appellant along with
other accused persons assaulted the informant’s brother on his
head by iron rod and the victim has died due to hemorrhage and
shock by hard and blunt substance, I am not inclined to grant the
appellant privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.