Patna High Court
Satyendra BindversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, Satyendra Bind and Ravi Bind, were charged under several IPC provisions and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault on 19‑04‑2025. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. The appellants contended that the allegations were false, pointing out inconsistencies between the FIR and the injury report of the complainant, and argued that the incident occurred inside a private residence, not in public view. The State opposed the bail, but the High Court examined the injury report and the lack of specific charges against one appellant. Relying on Section 482(2) of the CrPC, the Court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under the SC/ST Act and the IPC offences alleged against them.
- Whether the inconsistencies in the injury report and the private nature of the alleged assault negate the necessity of custody.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 329(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- assault
- injury report
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 482
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3281 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Satyendra Bind S/o Mahendra Bind Residents of Village- Sirbit, P.S.
Chainpur, District-Kaimur at Bhabua
2. Ravi Bind S/o Vijay Bind Residents of Village- Sirbit, P.S. Chainpur,
District-Kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashok Gond S/o Late Kharu Gond R/o vill- Sirbit, P.S.- Chainpur, Distt.-
Kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Sadanand Paswan.
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 16-7-2025 in A.B.P. No. 1272 of 2025 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with
SC/ST Bhabua P.S. Case No.18/2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections Sections 329(4), 191(2), 190, 126(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3281 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS as well as
Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned Spl PP submits that in compliance of the
order dated 11-11-2025, the concerned Superintendent of Police
was requested to inform the informant of the instant case
through the concerned PS to remain present before this Court on
the next date i.e., 5-1-2026. It is next submitted that informant
has been duly informed, but then chooses not to appear and
contest.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellant no. 1 has antecedent of one case and appellant no. 2 is
a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on
19.04.2025 in the night, all of a sudden, the accused persons
including the appellants came and on order of Lalu Bind, who
was carrying gun in his hand, the accused persons started
assaulting and Wakil Bind assaulted him by hockey stick on
head causing injury, thereafter Ravi Bind assaulted Dipu by
hockey stick causing injury on head and when Guddu Gond
came to save them, appellant no. 1 assaulted him by rod causing
injury on head, thereafter the police was informed and the
accused fled.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3281 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that though informant alleges
that appellant no. 1 assaulted Guddu by rod causing injury on
head, but then from perusal of the injury report of Guddu, it
would manifest that he suffered one injury on his left leg and
one injury on his left hand and the injury has been opined to be
simple in nature as such the allegation as alleged in the FIR gets
belied by the injury report. It is further submitted that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged against the appellant no.
2. It is also submitted that Pankaj Bind and four others had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 2467 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed
by an order dated 24-12-2025. It is next submitted that even
presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then
the entire occurrence took place at the house of the informant,
thus was not in public view.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants, but after perusing the case
diary fairly submits that the injury suffered by Guddu is on left
leg and left hand.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3281 of 2025(7) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
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. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed with respect to the appellants.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…