Patna High Court
Vicky KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
In the absence of a specific allegation against the appellant, the case does not sustain and he is entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
Vicky Kumar appealed against the rejection of his pre‑arrest bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act. The FIR alleged assault on a police party, including a constable of a scheduled caste, but did not name the appellant; his name emerged only from a co‑accused’s confessional statement. The court, relying on the Apex Court’s clarification in Kiran v. Rajkumar Juvraj Jain (SLP No. 8169 of 2025), held that the allegation against the appellant was vague, not specifically made in the FIR, and the victim had not identified him. Consequently, the appellant was deemed to have a prima facie case for bail. The High Court set aside the lower court’s order, directed the appellant’s release on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bond, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be denied under the SC/ST Act when the accusation against the accused is vague and not specifically mentioned in the FIR.
- Whether a co‑accused’s confessional statement alone suffices to sustain an arrest or deny bail under the SC/ST Act.
- Interpretation of Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act in conjunction with Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 121(1), 121(2), 127(1), 132, 303(2), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- vague allegation
- confessional statement
- Section 14A
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3054 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2025 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Vicky Kumar Son of Rajesh Singh village- Dumari Adda PS- Doriganj, Dist-
Saran at chapra
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dhananjay Rai Son of Late Sadhu Rai village- Yadav Chapar, PS- Kumar
Bag, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP.
For the Informant :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, learned Spl. PP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The appellant has preferred the appeal under
Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act against the rejection of
prayer for pre-arrest bail vide order dated 30.06.2025 passed by
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Saran at Chhapra in
Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025 registered under Sections
127(1), 115(2), 121(1), 121(2), 132, 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the
BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R. which is
against unknown, the accused persons including the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3054 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
assaulted the police party in which one of the constable was of
scheduled caste who was abused in public view.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R
nor he was member of the Barat. In this regard, he has made
specific statement in Paragraph no. (vi) of the present appeal.
Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation levelled
against the appellant is not specific rather general and omnibus
and the name of the appellant has surfaced in the case on the
disclosure made by co-accused Sumit Kumar Singh. The
appellant has clean antecedent. Considering the vague allegation
against the appellant on the basis of custodial interrogation of
co-accused Sumit Kumar Singh, learned counsel seeks that the
appellant be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Spl.PP for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having considered the allegations made
in the F.I.R. and in light of the recent clarification made by the
Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Juvraj Jain &
Anr. in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.8169 of 2025, I find
that in absence of any specific allegation against the appellant,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3054 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
even though the alleged incidence took place in public view, the
allegations are not sustainable against the appellant for the
reason that the name of the appellant has surfaced in course of
investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused Sumit Kumar Singh and in absence of the victim having
taken the name of the appellant that he is the one who had
assaulted the informant and in absence of any allegation that the
appellant had used any caste name in public view against the
constable Rajesh Ram rather the specific allegation against the
appellant is based on the confessional statement that he had
assaulted the informant on his head causing injury, the
allegation being vague, I find that prima facie the appellant has
made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
District Court where the case is pending in connection with
Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C / 482 (2) of the
BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3054 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…