Patna High Court
Sujit Bhandari @ Sujit Chaudhary @ Sujit Kumar ChandraversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and bail is granted with conditions.
Summary
Seven appellants were charged under multiple IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault, caste abuse and robbery arising from a land‑related dispute. They applied for anticipatory bail, which the trial court rejected, prompting an appeal. The appellants contended that no caste abuse occurred, the parties had settled the dispute, and the FIR was filed after a delay. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that cognizance had been taken. The High Court, relying on the coordinate‑bench decision in Prayag Sao v. State of Bihar, held that the settlement and the nature of the dispute warranted granting anticipatory bail with strict conditions, setting aside the lower court’s order. The appeal was allowed and bail was granted subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving serious offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite cognizance being taken.
- Whether a private settlement between the parties bars the continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the precedent set in Prayag Sao v. State of Bihar is applicable to the present land‑dispute case.
- Whether alleged caste abuse, if not proved, should preclude anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 143, 323, 324, 337, 34, 341, 354(B), 379, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- settlement
- land dispute
- caste abuse
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3419 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2019 Thana- BHAIRAVSHTHAN District-
Madhubani
======================================================
1. Sujit Bhandari @ Sujit Chaudhary @ Sujit Kumar Chandra S/O Mithilesh
Bhandari Resident Of Village- Kako, P.s.- Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
2. Anil Bhandari @ Anil Kr. Bhandari S/O Ramanand Bhandari Resident Of
Village- Kako, P.s.- Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
3. Dilip Chaudhary S/O Ayodhi Chaudhary Resident Of Village- Kako, P.s.-
Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
4. Sudarshan Chaudhary @ Sudarshan Bhandari S/O Ramashish Bhandari
Resident Of Village- Kako, P.s.- Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
5. Rakesh Bhandari @ Rakesh Kumar Bhandari S/O Shreekant Bhandari
Resident Of Village- Kako, P.s.- Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
6. Srikant Bhandari S/O Rajendra Bhandari Resident Of Village- Kako, P.s.-
Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
7. Ram Awtar Bhandari S/O Jageshwar Bhandari Resident Of Village- Kako,
P.s.- Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Nunu Mandal S/O Parikshan Mandal Resident Of Village- Kako, P.s.-
Bhairabsthan, Dist.- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
For resp. no. 2 : Manoj Kumar Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Gopal Jha, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha for the respondent no. 2.
2. The present Memo of Appeal has been filed on behalf
of the appellants against the order dated 26.06.2025, passed in
G.R. No. 126 of 2019, in connection with Bhairabsthan P.S. Case
No. 114 of 2019, by which the appellants have falsely been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3419 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/5
implicated in this case for the offences punishable under sections
143, 341, 323, 324, 354(B),337,379, 504,506 / 34 of I.P.C. and
under sections 3(i) (r), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional
Session Judge cum – Special Judge (P.O.A. Act) Madhubani
whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been
rejected.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that his villager came and made a request to fill up the soil. He
being the tractor driver, went to the place and while returning,
allegation is that the accused persons armed variously firstly
stopped the tractor and then after taking caste name, assaulted.
Allegation is that these appellants not only gave shoes blow on the
mouth, appellant no. 6 also spitted, outraging the modesty of the
mother who came to the rescue and snatching of amount is also
there. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that though
there has been delay in reaching the Court, neither there was any
caste abuse nor the assault, as disclosed. FIR has also been filed
four days later. The further submission is that at the time of
investigation itself, the parties acknowledging that they are known
to each other and are close, came to an agreement and do not want
to pursue the matter further which has been reported to the Police
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3419 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/5
also. In that background, the Police submitted final form but
cognizance has been taken in the matter.
5. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail submitting that cognizance has been taken in the
matter.
6. To this, learned counsel for the appellant has come
forward with an order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
APP (SJ) No. 324 of 2025 (Prayag Sao vs. State of Bihar)
disposed of on 02.04.2025 with reference to paragraph no. 5, 7
and 8. He submits that the said order is applicable in the present
case inasmuch as it was mainly the land dispute as the informant
being a tractor driver, was filling the soil which infuriated the
accused and led to the assault. It is also not the case that the caste
abuse took place in public view and as such, the appeal is
maintainable.
7. The informant was noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench
and he has appeared and endorsed the submissions put forward by
the learned counsel for the appellant that they being close to each
other, have come to an agreement and further, the aforesaid case of
Prayag Sao (supra) is applicable in the present matter.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts as also the
development that has taken place in between, the parties have
come to an agreement, cognizance has been taken, the law will
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3419 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/5
take its own course, to keep social harmony, considering the
aforesaid facts as also taking look at the Prayag Sao (supra) case,
this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory
bail with conditions.
9. The impugned order dated 26.06.2025 in G.R. No.
126 of 2019 in connection with Bhairabsthan P.S. Case No. 114 of
2019 by learned 1st Additional Session Judge cum – Special Judge
(P.O.A. Act) Madhubani 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
Court of 1st Additional Session Judge cum – Special Judge (P.O.A.
Act) Madhubani in connection with G.R. No. 126 of 2019 in
connection with Bhairabsthan P.S. Case No. 114 of 2019 .
(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) 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3419 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
5/5
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…