Patna High Court
Naga Kahar @ Suraj Kumar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the allegations do not meet the statutory requirements of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, and therefore the appellants are entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The appellants, three brothers from Rohtas, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly assaulting and abusing an informant by using his caste name. They contended that the FIR was false, that they were at home when the informant arrived, that they merely recorded the incident, and that no caste‑based insult was made. The prosecution argued that the assault occurred in public view at the entrance of the appellants' house. The High Court examined the meaning of “any place within public view” as explained in the Supreme Court decisions in Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Karuppudayar v. State (2025) INSC 132, and found that the FIR did not specifically allege that the act was visible to the general public. Consequently, the court held that the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act offences were not prima facie established and, considering the appellants’ clean antecedents, granted them pre‑arrest bail, setting aside the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged conduct satisfies the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the incident took place in "any place within public view" as required by the Act.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST Act
- public view
- caste insult
- assault
- Section 438 CrPC
- Swaran Singh test
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3340 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2025 Thana- KACCHWA District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Naga Kahar @ Suraj Kumar Prasad S/o- Shyam Sundar Kahar @ Shyam
Sundar Prasad @ Saroj Kumar Prasad Resident of Village- Dhodhandih PS-
Kachhawa District- Rohtas
2. Teju Kahar @ Teju Kumar Prasad S/o- Shyam Sundar Kahar @ Shyam
Sundar Prasad @ Saroj Kumar Prasad Resident of Village- Dhodhandih PS-
Kachhawa District- Rohtas
3. Lavkush Kahar @ Lavkush Prasad S/o- Saroj Kumar Prasad @ Shyam
Sundar Kahar @ Shyam Sundar Prasad Resident of Village- Dhodhandih
PS- Kachhawa District- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhim Ram S/o- Shivdeni Ram Village- Dhodhandih Ps- Kachhawa Dist-
Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr.Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants; learned Spl.PP for the State and learned counsel for
the O.P. No.2.
2. The appellants seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kachhawa P.S. Case No. 84 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS; Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/7
appellants along with other accused assaulted the informant and
and they also abused the informant by using his caste name.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and they
have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel submitted that the present case reflects a clear violation
of the safeguards and protections envisaged under the provisions
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of
1989”). Learned counsel submitted that at the relevant time the
appellants were present at their residence when the informant
allegedly arrived there and started abusing them. The appellants,
in order to protect themselves, video-recorded the incidence,
which subsequently prompted the informant to lodge the FIR on
false and fabricated allegations. Learned counsel further
submitted that the alleged place of occurrence is situated near
the residence of the appellants and the informant, with a mala
fide intention, has meticulously concocted a false criminal case
against them. The allegation that the appellants, along with co-
accused Naga Kahar (appellant no.1), assaulted the informant
with a lathi on his head in public view is wholly unsustainable.
The injury alleged to have been caused on the head of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/7
informant which has been recorded by the learned District Court
as a simple abrasion. Learned counsel submitted that no abusive
words referring to the caste of the informant were never used by
the appellants, therefore, in absence of the essential ingredients
constituting an offence under the Act of 1989 are not made out.
On these grounds, the appellants, who have clean antecedent,
seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh has
tendered his appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel submitted
that the informant has suffered substantial injury and
humiliation on account of the acts allegedly committed by the
appellants. He further submitted that the occurrence took place
on 30.03.2025 at about 7:00 p.m., near the entrance of the
appellants’ residence, and the same was in a public view.
According to the prosecution, all the accused persons actively
participated in the commission of the alleged offence. In view of
the nature of the allegations and the occurrence took place in
public view, the appellants don’t deserve to be released on pre-
arrest bail.
6. Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.PP appearing on
behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/7
bail.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, upon perusal of the allegations made in
the FIR, this Court finds that the alleged occurrence took place
near the house of the appellants. The FIR contains general and
omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, who
admittedly belong to the same family, alleging that they abused
the informant by taking his caste name. However, in the absence
of any specific overt act attributed to any of the appellants and
in the absence of clear particulars supporting the essential
ingredients of the offence, the allegations do not prima facie
appear to satisfy the statutory requirements under the Act of
1989. A reference of provision under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of the SC/ST Act has been made, which is, inter alia, as follows:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-
(1) (r) Intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view.”
8. The term “any place within public view” initially
came for consideration before the Apex Court in case of
Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel &
Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. In the case of Hitesh Verms
Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
5/7
the Apex Court had reiterated the legal position in paragraph
no.14 which is as under :
“14. Another key ingredient of the
provision is insult or intimidation in “any place
within public view”. What is to be regarded as
“place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment
reported as Swaran Singh v. State[Swaran Singh v.
State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] . The Court had drawn distinction between
the expression “public place” and “in any place
within public view”. It was held that if an offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a
place within the public view. On the contrary, if
the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then it would not be an
offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed.:
This sentence appears to be contrary to what is
stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh,
(2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the
application of this principle in para 15,
below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then also it would
be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The
Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”)
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view. It
could have been a different matter had the alleged
offence been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
6/7
expression “place within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the
other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government
or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon
sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by
private persons or private bodies.”
9. A reference in this regard can also be taken to a
recent judgment passed in the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State
Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Tricy &
Ors. arising out of Special Leave Petition (criminal) No.8778-
8779 of 2024), reported in 2025 INSC 132.
10. From the observation and explanations made by
the Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (Supra), it
transpires that the occurrence allegedly took place at the door of
the appellants’ house. There is no specific assertion in the FIR
that the said place was accessible to the general public or that
any independent member of the public witnessed the
occurrence. There is also no clear allegation that the veranda or
entrance was visible to persons from a public road or lane so as
to bring the alleged act within the ambit of “public view” as
explained by the Apex Court. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, in absence of specific and individual
allegations satisfying the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)
(s) of the Act of 1989, and further taking into account that the
appellants have clean antecedents, this Court is of the view that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
7/7
the appellants have prima facie made out a case to be released
on pre-arrest bail.
12. The appellants, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned court below within a period of four
weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned District Court where the case is pending in
connection with Lalmania P.S. Case No. 66 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/482 of the BNSS.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the present appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…