Patna High Court
Jai Prakash SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The appellant, Jai Prakash Singh, appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a Special Judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and the Bihar Negotiable Securitisation Statute. The appellant argued that he has a clean antecedent, the informant failed to appear after receiving notice, and the FIR was frivolous, arising from a dispute over guavas. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged offences. The High Court examined the credibility of the informant’s non‑appearance and the lack of substantive evidence, and held that the trial court’s refusal was not justified. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside, and the appellant was granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs. 5,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the present circumstances.
- Whether the trial court’s refusal of anticipatory bail was justified given the informant’s non‑appearance and alleged frivolous nature of the FIR.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are appropriate for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securitisation Statute (BNSS), 2034 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352, 482(2), 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(i)(w)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
- frivolous FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.306 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2025 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Jai Prakash Singh Son of Ram Bachan Singh Resident of Village - Turky, P.S.
- Chenari, Dist. - Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX Daughter of Ram Pravesh Paswan Resident of Village - Turky, P.S. -
Chenari, Dist. - Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sadanand Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. 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 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Sasaram at Rohtas in connection with
Chenari P.S. Case No. 429 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 352 and 3(5) of
the BNS, 2034 read with Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) and 3(i)(w) of
the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
from perusal of the office report dated 22.06.2026, it would
manifest that registered notice has been received by the
informant, but then the informant despite receiving notice
chooses not to appear and contest.
4. It is next submitted that appellant is a person
with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on
21.10.2025 at 02:30 PM, when she came on the road when
appellant along with Deepu caught her hair and dragged her
towards the field, on which she raised alarm and the accused
persons fled after tearing her cloths and she became
unconscious.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the same does not inspire confidence. It is next
submitted that informant and her family members had plucked
some guavas from the orchard of the appellant, on which an
altercation had taken place and thereafter the instant case came
to be instituted with frivolous allegation and this perhaps
explains why the informant despite receiving notice chooses not
to appear and contest.
6. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
appeal.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by
the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Sasaram at
Rohtas in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 429 of 2025, is
hereby set aside and the appellant above-named, in the event
of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from
today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Chenari P.S. Case No. 429 of 2025 subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.