Patna High Court
Sunsa ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellants, four members of the Manjhi family belonging to a Scheduled Caste, were charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly assaulting an informant and his family. They contended that the allegations were false, stemming from a land‑dispute, that there was no injury report, and that the FIR was lodged 23 days after the incident. The Exclusive Special Judge had rejected their anticipatory bail petition. On appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Patna High Court found merit in the appellants' contentions, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including bail bonds, sureties, and non‑interference with the informant. The court emphasized that the bail order would not affect the trial and that any concealment of criminal antecedents could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants despite the serious allegations under the SC/ST Act and the BNSS.
- Whether the appellants, being members of a Scheduled Caste, can be held liable under the SC/ST Act for the alleged offences.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of an injury report justify denial of bail.
- Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail petition.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- assault
- bail conditions
- criminal appeal
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438
- Section 14A
- land dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3184 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2024 Thana- Gurupa District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sunsa Manjhi S/O Kishun Manjhi R/O Village-Jhurang,PS-Gurpa,Distt-
Gaya
2. Murlesh Manjhi @ Mithlesh Manjhi S/O Sunsa Manjhi R/O Village-
Jhurang,PS-Gurpa,Distt-Gaya
3. Jhari Manjhi S/O Late Bhuna Manjhi R/O Village-Jhurang,PS-Gurpa,Distt-
Gaya
4. Vicky Manjhi @ Vikash Kumar S/O Late Bhuna Manjhi R/O Village-
Jhurang,PS-Gurpa,Distt-Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jhari Manjhi S/O Late Jagdish Manjhi R/O Village-Jhurang,PS-Gurpa,Distt-
Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP
For the Respondent No.2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties through
virtual mode.
2. Despite valid service of notice upon respondent
no.2 nobody had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent
no.2.
3. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3184 of 2025(3) dt.20-05-2026
2/5
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for
anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in A.B.A. No. 162 of
2025 in connection with Gurpa P.S. Case No.45 of 2024
registered for the offence/s punishable under Sections 190,
191(2), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(r)(s) and
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant has alleged that initially one Rahul Kumar @ Rahul
Yadav assaulted him with an iron rod in his left hand, causing a
fracture and subsequently, the present appellants abused and
assaulted the informant as well as his brother and even the
mother of the informant causing several injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that all
the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case on
account of old enmity due to a land dispute. It has further been
submitted that the allegations of assault and abuse are on the
whole family and therefore are general and omnibus. The only
specific attribution of assault is on appellant no.2 Murlesh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3184 of 2025(3) dt.20-05-2026
3/5
Manjhi @ Mithlesh Manjhi, however, no injury report has been
brought on record and in fact, even in the impugned order,
nothing has been discussed so far as the injury reports of the
injured persons are concerned. It has next been submitted that
the occurrence took place on 18.07.2024, while the FIR was
lodged after gap of almost 23 days, i.e., on 10.08.2024. It has
also been submitted that the co-accused Rahul Kumar has been
granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. It has
lastly been submitted that since the appellants themselves
belong to the scheduled castes therefore, no offence under the
SC/ST Act is made out against them. The appellants carry clean
antecedent.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail petition of the appellants.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants, the impugned order dated
19.06.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
S.C./S.T., Gaya in A.B.A. No. 162 of 2025 in connection with
Gurpa P.S. Case no.45 of 2024 is set aside against the
appellants.
8. The criminal appeal is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3184 of 2025(3) dt.20-05-2026
4/5
9. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the appellants above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
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 Gurpa P.S. Case
No.45 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the appellants
shall be their close relative and the other shall be
the local resident.
(ii) The appellants shall in no manner
threaten or try to contact or influence the
informant.
(iii) The learned Court below shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the appellants and in
case at any stage it is found that the appellants have
concealed their criminal antecedent, the court
below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the appellants. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3184 of 2025(3) dt.20-05-2026
5/5
verification.
10. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/ayushkr-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.