Patna High Court
Sumitra DeviversusThe 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, members of a Scheduled Caste family, appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Special Judge's order rejecting their anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged caste-based assault and threats. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abused the informant's caste, assaulted him with a knife, and fled, while the defence argued that the allegations were vague, stemmed from a land dispute, and that a retaliatory FIR had been filed. The court found merit in the defence's contentions, noting the lack of specific evidence and the presence of a pending criminal antecedent that required verification. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court's order and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including surety bonds, restrictions on contacting the informant, and verification of antecedents. The order emphasized that the bail conditions are not to delay the trial and are subject to cancellation if false information is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was justified.
- Whether the FIR allegations are sufficiently specific to deny bail.
- Whether the appellant's prior criminal antecedent and the underlying land dispute affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Application of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. in granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 126(2), 151(2), 3(2)(va), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste atrocity
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedent
- land dispute
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3186 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Sumitra Devi Wife of Raj Narayan Singh @ Rajnarayan Singh Resident of
village - Patedhi Bhai Khan Po- Anirudh, Ps- Belsar, Dist- Vaishali
2. Bibha Devi Wife of Chandan Nagmani and Daughter of Raj Narayan singh
@ Rajnarayan Singh Resident of village - Patedhi Bhai Khan Po- Anirudh,
Ps- Belsar, Dist- Vaishali
3. Raj Narayan singh @ Rajnarayan Singh son of Late Waskit singh Resident
of village - Patedhi Bhai Khan Po- Anirudh, Ps- Belsar, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shatrughan Paswan son of Late Ramsohag Paswan Resident of village -
Patedhi Bhai Khan Po- Anirudh, Ps- Belsar, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Archana Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode.
2. Despite the notice has validly been served but no
one appeared 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
anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Vaishali in A.B.A. No. 1723 of 2025 in
connection with Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No.366 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3186 of 2025(4) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
2025 registered for the offence/s punishable under Sections
126(2), 151(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that the named accused persons, including the
appellants, came and started abusing him by using his caste
name. It is alleged that when the informant asked them not to
abuse, appellant no. 3 Raj Narayan Singh, caught hold of the
informant and one co-accused, Raushan Kumar, gave a knife
blow on his chest. It has further been alleged that all the accused
persons threatened them and fled away.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
allegations against the appellant is not specific, rather, the same
are general and omnibus and the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are the
lady members of the family. It has further been submitted that
there is a land dispute between the parties. It has also been
pointed out that for the same incident an FIR was lodged by the
appellant’s side and in fact it was in retaliation to the said FIR
that subsequent thereto, the present FIR has been lodged with a
false and concocted story. It has lastly been submitted that the
appellants have one criminal antecedent of the year 2013
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3186 of 2025(4) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
relating to a land dispute between the agnates.
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
dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST,
Vaishali in A.B.A. No. 1723 of 2025 in connection with Vaishali
(Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No.366 of 2025, is set aside against the
appellant.
8. The criminal appeal is allowed.
9. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the appellant 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 Vaishali (Belsar
O.P.) P.S. Case No.366 of 2025, 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3186 of 2025(4) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
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 bonds
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
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.