Patna High Court
Sadhu Pandey @ Manoj Kumar Pandey @ Manoj PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Sadhu Pandey, was charged with multiple offences including IPC sections 109, 115(2), 127(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5), Section 27 of the Arms Act and several provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the Special Court denied the relief. On appeal, the appellant argued that the FIR was a duplicate and that the allegations of firing were vague, while the State contended that the FIR specifically named the appellant as the person who fired a pistol and injured the victim, and that granting bail could enable him to abscond. The Patna High Court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the specificity of the FIR, and the risk of the appellant fleeing. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the refusal of bail in place.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the existence of a prior FIR and alleged duplication of cases affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the risk of the appellant absconding justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 127(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(ii)(v), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- IPC offences
- criminal appeal
- bail refusal
- duplicate FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.334 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sadhu Pandey @ Manoj Kumar Pandey @ Manoj Pandey S/O Late
Mukteshwar Pandey R/O Village- Chhotka Mor, P.S.- Sasaram (M), District-
Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kamlesh Ram S/O Late Shiv Muni Ram R/O Village- Chhotka Mor, P.S.-
Sasaram (M), District- Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms Usha Kumari No. 1.
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 9-12-2025 passed by the learned Special Court
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with
Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 127(1), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act as
well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.334 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has antecedent of one case but then the said FIR was
also with respect to the same occurrence. It is next submitted
that the informant alleges that on 15-3-2025 at 4:30 PM, he saw
that his nephew (Govind) was being assaulted by Naga, Sadhu,
Dharmendra, Sushil and Antu by lathi and the accused were also
dragging him, further Dharmendra, Bhutali and Naga gave
orders to shoot, thereafter Sadhu brought a pistol and fired
causing fire arm injury to his son (Ritesh) on stomach.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that for the same occurrence,
Sasaram (M) PS Case No. 99 of 2025 was instituted. It is further
submitted that the instant FIR is the second FIR. It is also
submitted that in the FIR instituted by police the allegation of
firing though is alleged but then is not specific.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submits that when the
occurrence was committed, the police was not present at the
place of occurrence and the FIR has been instituted by father of
the injured, who specifically alleges that this appellant brought a
pistol and fired causing injury on his stomach. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.334 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
appellant, the appellant may abscond.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
Spl.PP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.