Patna High Court
Raja KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s order rejecting bail and granted bail to the appellant with conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Raja Kumar, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and IPC sections 137(2) and 140(1) for allegedly abducting a man with a gun. He contended that his involvement was based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement and that no prima facie case existed against him. The trial court had rejected his bail application, but the appellant pointed out that a similarly situated co‑accused, Md. Ali, had been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The High Court, noting the lack of substantive evidence and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, set aside the trial court’s order and granted bail with specified conditions. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was released on bail pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the trial court's rejection.
- Whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act exists against the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 140(1)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- IPC sections 137, 140
- false implication
- abduction
- appellate review
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3082 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2025 Thana- Jhandapur District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Raja Kumar S/o Sri Vidyanand Mandal @ Bidyanand Mandal Resident Of
Village- Tarani Basa, Ward No. 05, P.S.- Puraini, District- Madhepura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bataso Devi W/o Panjabi Ravidas R/o Vill.- Jayarampur, PS- Jhandapur,
Distt.- Bhagalpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite the notice having been validly served,
no one appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
3. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail
vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Special SC/ST Case
No. 68 of 2025 arising out of Jhandapur P.S. Case No. 64 of
2025 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-III-
cum-Special Judge (SC & ST Act) Bhagalpur registered for the
offence/s punishable u/ss 137(2), 140(1) of the BNS and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3082 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
2/4
section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that while she was taking rest at her Basa, the five
accused persons along with three unknown persons came
and abducted the informant’s husband on the point of gun
and it is further alleged that informant’s son had an old
enmity with the accused person due to which the accused
persons took away the informant’s husband by threatening
to kill him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case
solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of a
co-accused. It is further submitted that, on a prima facie
reading of the F.I.R., no offence under the provisions of the
SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. Learned
counsel also points out that the abducted person has already
been recovered and he in his statement has taken the name
of the appellant, however, a similarly situated co-accused,
namely Md. Ali, has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate
Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.09.2025
passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2903 of 2025. He lastly
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3082 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
3/4
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in
jail since 01.05.2025.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail petition of the appellant.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and
taking into account the fact that similarly situated person is
already been granted bail, the impugned order passed by the
learned Trial Court dated 23.06.2025 passed in Special
SC/ST Case No. 68 of 2025 arising out of Jhandapur P.S.
Case No. 64 of 2025 is accordingly set aside. Let the
appellant above named be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Special SC/ST Case No. 68 of 2025
arising out of Jhandapur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2025, subject to
the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors of the appellant shall be his
close relative and the other shall be the local resident.
(ii) The appellant shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3082 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
4/4
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
appellant will be liable to be cancelled by the court
concerned.
(iv) If the appellant is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at any stage
it is found that the appellant has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation
of bail bond of the appellant. However, the acceptance of
bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not
be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
8. The criminal appeal is allowed.
9. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…