Patna High Court
Saroj Kumar Madan @ Saroj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The appeal is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants with conditions, setting aside the Special Judge's order.
Summary
The appellants, Saroj Kumar Madan and his wife Leela Devi, were implicated in an FIR filed under several sections of the B.N.S. and the SC/ST Act following a family dispute involving alleged caste abuse and assault. They contended that the grievance was solely against the husband of the informant, that the case was false, and that a compromise had been reached with the husband, who later surrendered. The Special Judge had denied their anticipatory bail, prompting this appeal. The Patna High Court, noting the appellants' clean record and the developments in the case, set aside the Special Judge's order and granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions. The court ordered bail bonds, sureties, regular appearances before the trial court and police, and prohibited any tampering with witnesses or evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under the circumstances.
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act and B.N.S. provisions are maintainable against the appellants.
- Whether the Special Judge's order denying anticipatory bail is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false accusation
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- family members
- caste abuse
- compromise
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3378 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
1. Saroj Kumar Madan @ Saroj Kumar S/O Late Vijay Kamal @ Bijay Kamal
R/O Mohalla- Shrawan Bazar, P.S- Kotwali, Distt.- Munger.
2. Leela Devi W/O Saroj Kumar Madan R/O Mohalla- Shrawan Bazar, P.S-
Kotwali, Distt.- Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Soni Devi Mr. Rajesh Paswan R/V- Sandalpur Gumti No.06, P.O.-Jamalpur,
P.S.- Muffasil, Dist-Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 23-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants and the State.
2. This appeal has been filed for for setting aside the
impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed in A.B.A. 1011/2025
arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 185/2025 (F.I.R. No.
5113037250185) dated 03.06.2025 registered for the offences
Under Sections 126(2), 318(4), 64, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the
SC/ST Act passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/St cum
District and Addl. Sessions Judge-1st, Munger in which these
appellants have been falsely made accused and having
apprehension of arrest, the present memo of appeal is being
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3378 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
filed whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant
has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on 28.05.2025, the marriage of the daughter of the
informant was solemnized by the son of appellant no. 1 at the
temple but on 29.07.2025, the husband, Dev Raj fled away.
When they went to the house of the husband of the daughter of
the informant and with further information that she is pregnant,
they were abused and assaulted. This led to the FIR.
4. In this case, the Co-ordinate Bench had issued
notice to the informant on 18.09.2025 and the service report
shows that she received the notice but there is no appearance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a
perusal of the FIR would show that the grievance is against the
husband but the entire family members have been roped in and
to exaggerate the same, the caste abuse has also been
incorporated.
6. Further, by way of supplementary affidavit, the
submission is that the parties came to the compromise
whereafter, the son, Dev Raj surrendered and was granted relief
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST on 07.10.2025.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer submitting that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3378 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
allegations are there against the appellants herein.
8. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the development that has taken place, these appellants are
family members including the mother and father, have no
criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to
grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
9. The impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed in
A.B.A. 1011/2025 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No.
185/2025 by the learned Special Judge, SC/St cum District and
Addl. Sessions Judge-1st, Munger stands set aside and the
appeal is allowed.
10. Let the appellants, named above, in the event of
arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Special Judge, SC/St cum District and Addl. Sessions
Judge-1st, Munger in connection with A.B.A. 1011/2025 arising
out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 185/2025
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the appellants, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3378 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the appellants shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their
bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the appellants shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for next six months to mark
attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be
submitted to the Court;
(iv) the appellants shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the appellants shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…