Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.310 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR District-
                                                       Samastipur
                 ======================================================
           1.     Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Ray S/o Late Santosh Ray @ Dahaur Ray
                  R/o Village- Ward No 05, Kursaha, PS- Mohiuddin Nagar, District-
                  Samastipur
           2.    Aatish Kumar S/o Late Santosh Ray @ Dahaur Ray R/o Village- Ward No
                 05, Kursaha, PS- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur
           3.    Golu Kumar S/o Ajay Ray @ Katha R/o Village- Ward No 05, Kursaha, PS-
                 Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur
                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.     Dinesh Ram S/o Late Yogendra Ram R/o Village- Kursaha, PS- Mohiuddin
                  Nagar, District- Samastipur
                                                                     ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :       Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
                                                Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   25-06-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

                   Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel

                   appearing on behalf of the informant.

                                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 03.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 2932 of 2025 passed by

                   the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Samastipur in connection

                   with Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2025 registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.310 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
                                             2/4




          under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 352,

          351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)

          (s), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.

                       3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          appellants submits that appellants no. 1 and 2 have antecedent

          of one case and appellant no. 3 is a person with clean antecedent

          and is a young boy aged about 18 years and the informant

          alleges that on 28.07.2025 at 08:00 p.m. he was coming back

          home after purchasing medicine and saw that appellants along

          with Jyotish had parked their motorcycle on road and were

          carrying arms, when he asked them to remove the motorcycle,

          all the accused persons abused by taking caste name and

          assaulted causing injury on head and also assaulted his wife and

          snatched cycle and ring. It is further alleged that appellants

          came to the house of the informant and threatened not to

          institute a case.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

          allegation of abuse and assault is not specific. It is next

          submitted that it does not appear probable that all accused in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.310 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
                                             3/4




          one go would have abused the informant by taking caste name.

          It is also submitted that date of occurrence is 28.07.2025 and the

          FIR came to be instituted on 06.08.2025 i.e. after a delay of

          more than nine days which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution. It is submitted that had the informant been

          assaulted in the manner as alleged in that event, the hospital

          would have informed the police that a case of assault has come

          but then that is not the case as the FIR has been instituted based

          on the written application of the informant.

                       5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and

          learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed

          the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants,

          above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a

          period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be

          released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of

          Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of

          the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial

          Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid

          case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section

          438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.310 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
                                                        4/4




                                  7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and

                     this appeal stands allowed.


                                                                           (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T