Patna High Court
HARENDRA RAI @ HARINDRA RAYversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court set aside the trial court’s refusal of anticipatory bail for appellants 2, 3 and 4, granting them bail, but declined to extend bail to appellant 1.
Summary
The appellants Harendra Rai, Suchindra Rai, Abhishek Kumar and Ajit Kumar appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a Special Judge's order refusing anticipatory bail in a case alleging caste‑based assault and other offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the SC/ST Act. The informant claimed that the accused had abused her son with caste slurs, assaulted her daughter with a tangi, and entered her house. The appellants contended they were falsely implicated and that the allegations were vague and omnibus. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific assault on the daughter. The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to appellants 2, 3 and 4 subject to conditions, but refused bail to appellant 1, thereby setting aside the trial court's order for the three and partially allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the alleged offences.
- Whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing anticipatory bail to all the accused.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 329, 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based assault
- Section 14-A
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3101 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Harendra Rai @ Harindra Ray S/O JODHA RAI R/O Vill.- Uttarwari
Kadana, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran.
2. SUCHINDRA RAI @ SOCHINDRA RAI S/O LATE YODHA RAI R/O
Vill.- Uttarwari Kadana, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran.
3. ABHISHEK KUMAR S/O HARENDRA RAI @ HARINDRA RAY R/O
Vill.- Uttarwari Kadana, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran.
4. AJEET KUMAR S/O HARENDRA RAI @ HARINDRA RAY R/O Vill.-
Uttarwari Kadana, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Champa Devi W/O Umesh Manjhi R/O Vill.- Uttarwari Kadana, P.S.-
Garkha, Dist.- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms Usha Kumari No. 1.
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 24-6-2025 in A.B.P. No. 1749 of 2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Chhapra, Saran in
connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3101 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
2/4
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
118(2), 329 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned Spl. PP submits that on behalf of the
informant, name of four learned lawyers is appearing in the
cause-list, but then no one is present.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
case was referred for mediation by a learned Co-ordinate Bench,
but then the mediation failed. It is next submitted that appellants
are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that
on 30-3-2025 at 2 pm, her daughter was sleeping in the house
and her son went out of the house, when Harendra said that
accused persons are abusing him, hence her son saw inside the
flour mill and saw accused persons drinking, who abused him
by taking caste name, on which a fight ensued, thereafter
Harendra, Suchindra, Ajit, Abhishek along with five unknown
accused assaulted her son and entered the house and Harendra
assaulted her daughter by tangi causing injury on leg, thereafter
police was informed and the police came and asked the
informant to first get the injured treated and thereafter to
institute an FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3101 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
3/4
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that Harendra disclosed to her son that
accused persons were abusing him, accordingly he went near the
flour mill, where the accused persons abused him by taking
caste name and were drinking but then the allegation of abuse is
general and omnibus in nature and the case has not been
instituted under the Excise Act. It is further submitted that as far
as allegation of assault is alleged, the same is general and
omnibus in nature though informant alleges that appellant no. 1
entered her house and assaulted her daughter, who was sleeping,
by tangi causing injury on leg.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants and submits that the
specific allegation of assaulting the daughter of the informant by
tangi is against the appellant no. 1. It is also submitted that if
there was any dispute in between the son of the informant and
accused persons, they could have settled the same outside the
house, but then there is no occasion for the appellant no. 1 to
enter the house and assault the daughter of the informant, who
was sleeping.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3101 of 2025(4) dt.04-05-2026
4/4
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 above-named, in the event of their
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) each 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 the
aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. However, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant no. 1 ( Harendra Rai
@ Harindra Ray).
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with
respect to appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the appeal stands partly
allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…