Patna High Court
Bindi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Bindi Kumar, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023, for alleged assault and theft at the complainant's residence on 26‑08‑2024. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the Exclusive Special Judge refused it on 07‑01‑2026. The appellant contended that he has a clean record, the FIR is vague, the incident was not in public view, and the complaint was filed after an unreasonable delay, indicating false implication. The State and the informant opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after considering these submissions, set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds and sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the allegations.
- Whether the FIR and the delay in filing the complaint render the accusations insufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 74
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s), 3(w)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste atrocities
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.357 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
Bindi Kumar Son of Mathura Yadav @ Mathur Yadav Resident of village-
Mastpura, Ps- Boghdaya, dist- Gayaji
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi Wife of Shri Arun Kumar Das Resident of village- Mastpura,
Ps- Boghdaya, dist- Gayaji
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
For the Informant : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
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 07.01.2026 in A.B.P. Excl. Spl. SC/ST 336 of 2025
passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA)
Act, Gaya Ji in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
126(2), 115(2), 74, 303(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 as well
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.357 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026
2/3
as Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 26.08.2024 at 09:30 PM, seven named accused
persons including the appellant came to her house and started
abusing, thereafter, Raja, Bindi and Jitendra assaulted her
husband, son and daughter and tore cloths of her daughter and
Raja took away jewellery worth Rs. 50,000/-, on alarm people
gathered and accused left threatening.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that entire
occurrence took place at the house of the informant, as such,
was not in public view and even allegation of abuse and assault
is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that it
does not appear probable that all accused in one go would have
abused the informant by taking caste name. It is also submitted
that the date of occurrence is 26.08.2024, thereafter, after a
delay of more than a month, complaint case came to be filed on
07.10.2024, based on which the instant FIR was instituted on
25.11.2024 which casts an aspersion on the case of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.357 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026
3/3
prosecution.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State as well as the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes
the appeal.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya
Ji is hereby set aside and the appellant above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.