Patna High Court
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the refusal and granted anticipatory bail, holding that the FIR’s lack of specificity warranted bail.
Summary
Santosh Kumar Sharma appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case registered under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 and SC/ST Act sections 3(i)(r)(s). The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated over a trivial dispute about plucking mangoes and argued that the FIR was vague, lacking specific details of the alleged abuse and the place of occurrence. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant could not counter the claim of insufficiency in the FIR. The Patna High Court, considering the appellant's submissions, held that the lack of specificity justified granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the court set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal, directing release on bail with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is justified in a SC/ST Act case where the FIR is vague and lacks specific allegation of place and nature of offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- FIR vagueness
- false implication
- IPC offences
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3394 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2022 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran
======================================================
SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA Son of Late
Chandrikalal Sharma @ Bhola Sharma Resident of Village-Ghurghat, P.S.-
Siswan, District-Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. BITU KUMAR SAH Son of Surendra Sah Resident of Village-Chainpur,
Mubarakpur, P.S.-Siswan, Dist.-Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 20-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.I for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.
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 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-3rd-cum Special Judge, SC/ST/MP/MLA, Saran
at Chapra in Rasulpur P.S. Case No.177/2022, registered under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3394 of 2023(5) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has antecedent of three cases and the informant alleges
that he works in the house of Vijay Shankar Prasad, further he
asked not to pluck mangoes from the orchard of his master, on
which the accused persons including the appellant abused him
by taking caste name and assaulted by fist and leg.
4. Learned counsel submits that appellant has been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that on trivial issue of plucking mangoes, the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted
that though informant alleges that he was abused and assaulted
by fist and leg but then allegation of of abuse and assault is
general and omnibus in nature when SC/ST Act is a stringent
Act. It is also submitted that the FIR does not disclose where the
occurrence took place.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal
but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the
allegation of abuse and assault is not specific and the informant
does not disclose where the occurrence took place.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3394 of 2023(5) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
counsel for the appellant, the appellant, above named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned court below where the case is pending in connection
with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…