Patna High Court
Ramashish SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside, with the appellants granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Ramashish Sah and Dinesh Prasad, appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the refusal of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. They contended that they were falsely implicated in a dispute over Madhupur Math, that the FIR lacked specific assault allegations, and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The trial court had denied anticipatory bail despite the charges under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023 and the SC/ST Act. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the appellants could be released on anticipatory bail if arrested or if they surrender within six weeks, subject to bail bonds and sureties, and subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act is justified when the FIR does not specifically allege assault against the appellants.
- Whether the appellants can be granted anticipatory bail despite pending charges under the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023.
- Whether the informant’s testimony, being non‑eyewitness, suffices to sustain the charge sheet.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- FIR
- bail conditions
- Section 14A
- Criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3591 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2025 Thana- Maghopur District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Ramashish Sah son of Babu Lal Sah Resident of Village- Madhopur PS
-Madhopur District -Gopalganj
2. Dinesh Prasad Son of Vijay Prasad Resident of Village- Madhopur PS
-Madhopur District -Gopalganj
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinkar Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police son of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh
@ Rajendra Singh Resident of Village- Balgudar, PS and Dist- Lakhisarai,
Recently Posted as Sub Inspector of Police PS- Madhopur, Gopalganj
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special 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 27.06.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Gopalganj in connection
with Madhopur P.S. Case No.25 of 2025, registered under
Sections 191(2), 190, 196, 298, 333, 324(4), 126(2), 115(2), 352
and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 as well as Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3591 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/4
(POA) Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant no.1 has antecedent of one
case and appellant no.2 has antecedents of three cases and the
informant alleges that 17.03.2025 at 12:00 noon while he was
on patrolling duty, he received an information that several
accused persons have assembled at Madhopur Math, which is
disputed from before and have broken the lock and damaged the
articles kept there, accordingly, the informant along with the
force reached the place of occurrence and saw a lady sitting at
the door of the temple, namely, Phuljhari Devi who disclosed
that Sanjay Manjhi broke open the lock and Vir Pratap Singh
was saying that despite order of the court in his favour,
Dharmendra Kumar is disputing the land of the Math. Further,
he saw Ranjan Singh, Wife of Sanjay Manjhi along with 50
accused variously armed were abusing while Dharmendra
Kumar disclosed himself to be the Chairman of Madhopur Math
based on an order of Religious Trust Board but refused to show
any documentary evidence in support thereof. It is next alleged
that from his side also, accused had gathered and both sides
were ready to assault each other.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3591 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/4
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged. It is also submitted that
even informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence rather
based on secret information, he reached the place of occurrence
and saw a lady sitting at the door of the temple who disclosed
that what had had happened but then no specific allegation is
alleged against the appellants. It is also submitted that police
after investigation submitted Chargesheet No.71 of 25, dated
25.06.2025 under various sections of B.N.S. and the case was
not found true under the SC/ST Act. Further, even cognizance
came to be taken under the sections of B.N.S. by an order dated
22.08.2025 based on the chargesheet, as would manifest from
supplementary affidavit filed on 08.01.2026.
5. The learned Special P.P. opposes the appeal.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellants, let appellants, above named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3591 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
4/4
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending in connection with Madhopur
P.S. Case No.25 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…