Patna High Court
Dipu Kumar Ray @ Dipu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted it, holding that the allegations were not specific enough to deny bail.
Summary
The appellants, three brothers, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged caste-based abuse, assault with a rod and a sharp weapon, and other offences. The Special Judge had refused anticipatory bail, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants argued they have clean antecedents, the allegations are vague, the injury is simple, and they were falsely implicated; the State opposed bail but also noted the injury was minor. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the allegations were not specific enough to deny bail and that the simple nature of the injury did not warrant denial. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order, granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the Cr.P.C., and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act given the nature of the allegations?
- Whether the allegations of caste‑based abuse and assault are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail
- Whether the simplicity of the alleged injury impacts the decision on anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 127(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 75
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- specificity of allegations
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3423 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2025 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Dipu Kumar Ray @ Dipu Yadav, Son of Mukun Ray @ Vakil Yadav,
Resident of Village- Majhauli, P.S.- Baniyapur, District- Saran
2. Ravi Kumar Ray @ Ravi Kumar, son of Ramjeet Ray, Resident of Village-
Majhauli, P.S.- Baniyapur, District- Saran
3. Raushan Kumar Ray @ Raushan Kumar, son of Ramjeet Ray, Resident of
Village- Majhauli, P.S.- Baniyapur, District- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pramila Devi, Wife of Chandan Ram, Resident of Village- Majhauli, P.S.-
Baniyapur, District- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
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 23.07.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2656 of 2025 passed by
the learned SC/ST Exclusive Special Judge, (POA) Act, Chapra,
Saran in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 244 of 2025
registered under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3423 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
75, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3
(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned S.P.P. for the State, at the outset, submits
that in compliance of the order dated 17.11.2025, the concerned
Superintendent of Police was informed about the pendency of
the appeal and was requested to inform the informant about the
case so that he appears on the next date fixed i.e. 11.12.2025. It
is next submitted that despite the informant being aware of the
pendency of the appeal, chooses not to appear and contest.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants are person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that she along with her mother-in-law and
daughter were going to attend the function when appellants in
front of her house abused by taking caste name and acted
inappropriately with her daughter, on protest assaulted by rod
causing injury on her head and also assaulted Laxman Ram by
sharp weapon causing injury on head.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that as far as allegation of
abuse is alleged the same was not in public view and it does not
appear probable that all accused in one go would have abused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3423 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
the informant by taking caste name. It is next submitted that as
far as the allegation of assault is alleged the same is also not
specific and the injury has been opined to be simple in nature
and allegation of acting inappropriately with her daughter is
ornamental. It is further submitted that these are the reasons
perhaps the informant despite receiving notice chooses not to
appear and contest.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants but
then fairly submits that after perusing the case diary that injury
is simple and not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
allegation of assault is not specific.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants,
above-named, in the event of their 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 bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3423 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…