Patna High Court
Ram Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court denied pre‑arrest bail to appellant 1 but granted bail to appellants 2, 3 and 4.
Summary
The appellants, Ram Kumar Sah and his family members, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and using caste-based insults at the informant's doorstep. The appellants sought pre‑arrest bail, claiming innocence and that the FIR was fabricated due to a business rivalry. The State opposed bail, arguing the informant suffered injury. The court examined the meaning of "any place within public view" under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, relying on Supreme Court precedents in Swaran Singh v. State and Hitesh Verms v. State, as well as the recent Karuppudayar decision. It held that the alleged insult occurred in public view at the informant's door, justifying denial of bail to appellant 1, but granted bail to appellants 2, 3 and 4 on the basis of clean antecedents and only general allegations against them. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court’s order and directing bail for the three family members.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged caste‑based insult and intimidation occurred in "any place within public view" as required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to the principal accused (appellant 1) for offences under the SC/ST Act and the Bihar Penal Code.
- Whether the family members (appellants 2, 3 and 4) can be granted bail despite the general and omnibus allegations in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(a), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste insult
- public view
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
- business rivalry
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3176 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2024 Thana- Lalamnia District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Ram Kumar Sah S/o- Mahadeo Sah R/o - Mansapur, P.S - Ladania, District -
Madhubani
2. Lalita Devi W/o- Ram Kumar Sah R/o - Mansapur, P.S - Ladania, District -
Madhubani
3. Madhuri Kumari @ Madhwi Kumari D/o- Ram Kumar Sah R/o - Mansapur,
P.S - Ladania, District - Madhubani
4. Rishu Kumar @ Rishu Kumar Sah S/o- Ram Kumar Sah R/o - Mansapur,
P.S - Ladania, District - Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Savan Kumar Ram S/o- Santosh Ram R/o - Santnagar, P.S - Ladania,
District - Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr.Gagandev Yadav, Advocate
Mr.Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants; learned Spl.PP for the State and learned counsel for
the O.P. No.2.
2. The appellants seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Lalmania P.S. Case No. 66 of 2024 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351,
3(5) of the BNS; Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3176 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
2/6
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
appellants assaulted the informant and abused him by using his
caste name while he was working at his house.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that appellants are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel
submitted that the alleged incident occurred due to business
rivalry between the appellant no.1 and the informant, and that
the appellant nos.2, 3 and 4, being the family members, have
falsely been roped in the present case. The allegations made in
the FIR are frivolous and concocted, and the appellants have
neither assaulted nor abused the informant. Appellants have
clean antecedents. On these grounds, the learned counsel
submitted that the allegation being general and omnibus, the
appellants seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav has
tendered his appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel submitted
that informant has suffered considerably due to the acts of the
appellants.
6. Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.PP appearing on
behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3176 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
3/6
bail.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR, I find it apposite, for proper appreciation of the rival
contentions, to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which is, inter alia, as follows:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-
(1) (r) Intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view.”
8. The term “any place within public view” initially
came for consideration before the Apex Court in case of
Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel &
Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. In the case of Hitesh Verms
Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435,
the Apex Court had reiterated the legal position in paragraph
no.14 which is as under :
“14. Another key ingredient of the
provision is insult or intimidation in “any place
within public view”. What is to be regarded as
“place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment
reported as Swaran Singh v. State[Swaran Singh v.
State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] . The Court had drawn distinction between
the expression “public place” and “in any place
within public view”. It was held that if an offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3176 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
4/6
place within the public view. On the contrary, if
the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then it would not be an
offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed.:
This sentence appears to be contrary to what is
stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh,
(2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the
application of this principle in para 15,
below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then also it would
be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The
Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”)
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view. It
could have been a different matter had the alleged
offence been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the
expression “place within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the
other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government
or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon
sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by
private persons or private bodies.”
9. A reference in this regard can also be taken to a
recent judgment passed in the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State
Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Tricy &
Ors. arising out of Special Leave Petition (criminal) No.8778-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3176 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
5/6
8779 of 2024), reported in 2025 INSC 132.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, upon thoughtful perusal of the
allegations made in the FIR, I find that the alleged offence took
place in public view at the door of the informant on account of
business rivalry between the appellant no.1 and the informant
In such circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the
appellant no.1 on pre-arrest bail.
11. So far as, appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned,
they being family members of appellant no. 1, and only general
and omnibus allegations having been levelled against them, I
find that appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4, having clean antecedent,
have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
12. The appellant nos.2, 3 and 4, above named, are
directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned court below 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 Lalmania P.S. Case No. 66 of 2024,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3176 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
6/6
the Cr.P.C/482 of the BNSS.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the present appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…