Patna High Court
Baidhyanath SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The appellants, Baidhyanath Singh and his son Amit Kumar, appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case arising from a dispute over Rs.8.65 lakh allegedly given by the respondent, Raj Kapur Dhankar, for the purchase of land. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were the landlord, abused the respondent with caste slurs and assaulted him when the respondent demanded the return of the money. The appellants contended that there was no written agreement, the FIR was lodged after a long delay, and the matter was essentially a civil landlord‑tenant dispute. The court examined the applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the relevance of the alleged offences under the IPC, noting the lack of concrete evidence and the precedent of a similar co‑accused being granted anticipatory bail. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order refusing bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to standard conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The propriety of refusing anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse and assault constitute offences triable under the SC/ST Act and the IPC.
- The impact of the delay between the alleged incident (15‑09‑2022) and the filing of the FIR (25‑02‑2023) on bail considerations.
- The relevance of the landlord‑tenant nature of the dispute to the criminal charges.
- The applicability of precedent where a similarly situated co‑accused was granted anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 420, 504, 506/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- assault
- landlord-tenant dispute
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3567 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2023 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Baidhyanath Singh, S/O Late Bachhu Singh, R/O Mohalla- New Colony
Balu Ghat, PS-Town, Distt-Muzaffarpur
2. Amit Kumar, S/O Baidhyanath Singh, R/O Mohalla- New Colony Balu
Ghat, PS-Town, Distt-Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raj Kapur Dhankar, S/O Singeshwar Dhankar, R/O Village-Jajua Tola
Bhorha, PS- Katra, Distt-Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
For the Respondent no.2 : Ms. Y. Madhavi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the respondent and learned Spl. P.P. 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 10.06.2025
passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA)
Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 153 of
2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
379, 323, 504 & 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3567 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
respondent was living with the family on rent in the house of the
appellant no.1 Vaidyanath Singh. It is further alleged that the
respondent has handed over Rs.8,65,000/- to appellant no.1 for
purchasing some land. It is further alleged that when the
respondent requested for execution of sale deed, appellants no. 1
changed. It is alleged that the respondent was being abused with
caste name. Ultimately on 15.09.2022, when the respondent asked
the appellants to return the cash it is alleged that appellants and
others abused with caste name and assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that the appellants are innocent and have committed no offence.
They have falsely been implicated in this case. The occurrence is
of 15.09.2022 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 25.02.2023.
This huge delay is not explained. As far as giving amount of
Rs.8,65,000/- is concerned, there is no agreement between the
parties regarding the execution on any sale deed, even learned
counsel for the respondent has also conceded that there is no
agreement and the amount was given in cash on different dates. It
has further been submitted that it is a dispute between landlord and
tenant. The nature of allegation is general and omnibus. It has also
been submitted that similarly situated co-accused has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3025 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3567 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
2025. The case of these appellants stands on similar footing.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the respondent have vehemently opposed the appeal.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 10.06.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 297 of 2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Town P.S.
Case No. 153 of 2023 is hereby set aside and the appellants above-
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned
Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case
is pending/successor court in connection with Town P.S. Case No.
153 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…