Patna High Court
Masud Parvez @ Masud ParwezversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the alleged offence did not occur in public view and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply, warranting the grant of pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The appellants were charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC for allegedly assaulting a complainant over a land dispute, with the complaint alleging caste-based abuse. They contended that the allegations were false, stemming from a family land partition dispute, and that a similar case had already resulted in pre‑arrest bail. The State opposed bail, invoking the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The High Court observed that the alleged assault did not occur in public view and that the bar under Section 18 was not attracted, especially given the earlier grant of bail in a related case. Consequently, the order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellants were directed to be released on bail if arrested, with the appeal allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged offence under the SC/ST Act attracts the bar of Section 18, i.e., whether it was committed in public view.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to pre‑arrest bail in view of the earlier bail order in a similar case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 18 bar
- public view
- land dispute
- assault
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3593 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2022 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
1. Masud Parvez @ Masud Parwez S/O Late Md. Azim
2. Md. Nesar S/O Late Md. Israiel
3. Shahabul Rahman S/O Md. Motif @ Md. Mofil
4. Abdul Qadir @ Aslam S/O Late Abdul Majid
5. Mahesh Sah S/O Late Asharfi Sah
6. Md. Ehsan S/O Md. Habib
7. Md. Shafi S/O Md. Farooque
All are R/O Village- Chaknaseer, P.S- Patepur, District- Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Cahndeshwar Ram S/O Late Lakhan Ram R/O Village- Chaknaseer, P.S-
Patepur, District- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dhirendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. PP for the State.
2. The appellants have preferred the appeal under
Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act against the rejection of
prayer for pre-arrest bail vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed by
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Vaishali in Complaint
Case No.35/2022 registered under Sections 323,341,504 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s),3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3593 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
Act.
3. As per the allegations made in the complaint
petition, the complainant purchased a piece of land appertaining
to Khata No. 53, Khesra No. 942, measuring an area of 2.63
decimals, through a registered sale deed executed by Jiya
Pravej. Subsequently, the land was duly mutated in his favour. It
is further alleged that appellant no. 1 preferred an appeal against
the said mutation before the D.C.L.R., Mahua, wherein an order
was passed in his favour. Aggrieved by the same, the
complainant filed a revision petition before the A.D.M.,
Vaishali, which was decided in his favour. It is alleged that on
20.03.2022, owing to the said land dispute, the appellants, along
with other co-accused persons, abused the complainant by
referring to his caste and also assaulted him, causing injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that appellant no. 1 and Jiya Parwez, who executed
the sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the
aforesaid land, are real brothers. Learned counsel submitted that
appellant no. 1 has another brother, namely Imtiaz Parwez, and
the said land has not been partitioned among the three brothers.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3593 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
Despite this, Jiya Parwez allegedly sold the land to the
complainant without proper authority. Being aggrieved by the
said act, appellant no. 1 and his brother Imtiaz Parwez
separately filed complaint before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vaishali, against their brother Jiya Parwez as well as
the present complainant. It is further submitted that upon
learning about the said complaints, the complainant, by way of
retaliation, instituted the present case against the appellants.
Learned counsel further submitted that on almost identical
allegations, the complainant has also instituted Hajipur SC/ST
P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023 against appellant no. 1 and others, in
which appellant no. 1 has already been granted pre-arrest bail by
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2024
passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4815 of 2023. It is also
contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the
alleged occurrence took place in public view, as such, the
essential ingredients for constituting an offence under the SC/ST
Act are not made out. It is further submitted that the allegation
of assault is general and omnibus.
5. Learned Spl.PP for the State has opposed the prayer
for grant of bail to the appellant.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3593 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the complaint petition, I find that for the similar allegation, the
complainant has earlier filed a case against appellant no.1 and
others, in which he has been granted pre-arrest bail and also
the fact that the alleged offence has not taken place in public
view. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated
24.07.2025 is quashed and set-aside as the bar under Section 18
of the SC/ST Act is not attracted.
7. The learned Trial Court is directed to release the
appellants, above named, on bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is
pending in connection with Complaint Case No.35/2022,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of
the Cr.P.C / 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…