Patna High Court
Sanjeet @ Sanjeet Kumar @ Lotha KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The order rejecting bail is set aside and the appellants are entitled to bail.
Summary
The appellants Sanjeet Kumar and Budhan Rai appealed against the rejection of their bail application in a case involving alleged assault, injury, and caste-based abuse under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC offences. They argued that the notice served on the second respondent was valid because a jointness application had been filed, making service proper. The appellants contended that the allegations were vague, not made in public, and lacked specific intent to target a Scheduled Caste/Tribe, thus not falling within the ambit of the SC/ST Act. The State opposed bail, maintaining that the offences were cognizable and the SC/ST provisions applied. The High Court held that the notice was valid, the allegations did not constitute a specific SC/ST offence, and therefore the lower court’s order denying bail was erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and bail was granted on the condition of a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice served on the second respondent is valid under the jointness provision.
- Whether the alleged assault and abuse constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged SC/ST offences and multiple IPC charges.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 342, 448, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(w)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- jointness notice
- caste-based offence
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3276 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2024 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Sanjeet @ Sanjeet Kumar @ Lotha Kumar Son of Laljeet Prasad @ LALJIT
RAY R/O Vill.- Jethuli, P.s.- Nadi, Dist.- Patna
2. Budhan Rai @ Budhani Rai @ Budhani Prasad Son of Laljeet Prasad @
Laljit Ray R/O Vill.- Jethuli, P.s.- Nadi, Dist.- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Patna
2. Rajesh Das Son of Rajkumar Das R/O Vill.- Jethuli, P.s.- Nadi, Dist.- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhimanyu Deo
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Spl.
P.P., Mr.Binay Krishna, appearing for the State.
2. This appeal 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 bail vide
order dated 19.06.2024, passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge
SC/ST (POA) 1989 Act, Patna, in connection with Nadi P.S. Case
No. 106 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 341, 342, 323, 448, 504, 506 & 34 of the I.P.C. and
Sections 3(1)(r) (s)/ 3(2)(v a)(w) SC/ST (POA) 1989 Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that notice on behalf of respondent No.2 has
been received by his uncle, it is submitted that informant and his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3276 of 2024(6) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
uncle are jointness and jointness application has been filed.
4. In view of the fact that the jointness application has
been filed, the notice is deemed to be validly served.
5. It is next submitted that appellants have antecedent
of one case and the informant alleges that on 01.04.2024, Bittu,
Sanjeet, Budhani Ram were quarreling with their father, hence the
younger brother of the informant, namely, Bhola, asked them not
quarrel, on which Bittu caught his collar and assaulted by fists,
Lalpari got injury over his left eye, thereafter, all the three brother
entered the house of the informant and abused by taking caste name
and Sanjeet pelted stone causing injury on informant’s head.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants have falsely been implicated in the instant case by
the informant, it is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation, as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the
informant alleges that Sanjeet, Bittu and Budhni were quarreling
with their father on which Bhola, the younger brother of the
informant objected when the occurrence to have been taken place,
it is also submitted that as far as allegation of abuse is alleged, the
same is general and omnibus in nature and the informant alleges
that all the three brothers entered her house and thereafter abused,
as such, the abuse was not not in public view, it is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3276 of 2024(6) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
that as far as allegation of assault is alleged, the same is
exonerating allegation, it is next submitted that no doubt an
altercation took place in which both sides assaulted each other but
then the assault is not with an intent that the side of the informant
belongs to SC/ST category. It is further submitted that no specific
allegation is alleged against the appellant No2, it is next submitted
that this perhaps explain that why informant despite receiving
notice chooses not to appear and contest.
7. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail.
8. Considering the above, the impugned order
19.06.2024 is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
9. Considering the aforesaid fact, let the appellants,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Patna, in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No.
106 of 2024.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…