Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

GAURI SHANKAR RAYversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Since cognizance was taken, the rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act apply, precluding anticipatory bail, and the appellant must surrender for prompt disposal of the case.

Summary

Gauri Shankar Ray, a 70‑year‑old member of a Scheduled Caste, was charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting the son of an informant. The police, invoking Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., did not arrest him during investigation but later filed a charge‑sheet, leading the trial court to take cognizance and refuse anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant appealed to the Patna High Court, contending his senior citizen status, clean antecedent and the police’s decision not to arrest should merit bail. The Court held that once cognizance is taken, the rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act apply, precluding anticipatory bail, though it ordered the appellant to surrender on 19‑01‑2026 and directed the trial court to dispose of the matter promptly, taking his age into account. Consequently, the appeal was disposed with a direction to surrender, rather than granting bail.

Issues considered

  • Can anticipatory bail be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act when cognizance of offence has been taken?
  • Does Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bar anticipatory bail in such circumstances?
  • May the appellant’s senior citizen status and clean antecedent influence the bail decision?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • cognizance
  • senior citizen
  • Section 18
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3576 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2019 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 GAURI SHANKAR RAY S/o- Nepal Ray @ Gopal Ray Resident of Village-
                 Gangarhi Police Station-Dinara District- Rohtas

                                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   06-01-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binay

                   Krishna, 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 26.06.2025 in registration No. 238 of 2019 passed

                   by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-17-cum-

                   Special Court, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Sasaram Rohtas, in connection

                   with Dinara P.S. Case No. 299 of 2019 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the

                   I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

                               3. The learned Spl. PP, at the outset, submits that the

                   case was taken up on 11.11.2025, wherein learned Spl. PP was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3576 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
                                             2/4




          directed to communicate the SP/SHO with regard to the

          pendency of the appeal so that the informant is informed about

          the case, so that he remains present in the case on the next date

          of hearing. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order

          dated 11.11.2025, the SP/SHO was duly informed and he has

          received service report showing that the informant has been

          informed about the case. Learned Spl. PP submits that informant

          despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

          appellant is aged about 70 years and is a person with clean

          antecedent. It is next submitted that in sum and substance the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR is that the informant alleges that

          the appellant assaulted his son on the pretext that the son of the

          informant had thrown stones at the tree of the appellant. It is

          further submitted that police during the course of investigation

          gave benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant co-

          operated in the investigation. It is next submitted that police

          during the course of investigation never felt the need of

          arresting the appellant, but then charge sheet came to be

          submitted based on which the cognizance was taken. It is

          submitted that since the police never felt the need of arresting

          the appellant during the course of investigation whether it would
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3576 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
                                             3/4




          be prudent for the Court to send the appellant to jail based on an

          order of cognizance. It is reiterated and submitted that appellant

          is a senior citizen aged about 70 years has remained a person

          with clean antecedent and all of a sudden came to be implicated

          in the instant case. It is next submitted that informant despite

          receiving notice chooses not to appear which amply

          demonstrates that informant is not interested in contesting the

          appeal.

                       5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the appeal

          and submitted that since cognizance has been taken by the

          learned trial court as such a prima facie offence is made out thus

          rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act will apply. The Court

          prima facie was satisfied with the submission made by the

          learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and was

          inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail, but since

          cognizance has been taken as such the appeal is disposed of

          with a direction to the appellant to surrender before the learned

          Trial Court on 19.01.2026.

                       6. It is made clear that if the appellant surrenders on

          19.01.2026 in that event the learned trial court shall consider

          and dispose of the case on the same day keeping in mind the

          fact that appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and is
              Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3576 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
                                                           4/4




                        a person with clean antecedent and police during the course of

                        investigation never felt the need of arresting him.

                                     7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the

                        aforesaid direction.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Jyoti/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.