Patna High Court
Vinay Kumar @ Vinayak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The High Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the injury was simple and the appellants had no criminal antecedent, thereby setting aside the lower court’s denial.
Summary
The appellants, Vinay Kumar and Purushotam Dubey, were charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly assaulting a person and abusing him on the basis of caste during a protest. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal, the High Court considered the nature of the alleged injury (deemed simple), the absence of any criminal antecedent, and the allegations in the FIR. Weighing these factors, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and directed that the appellants be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond with sureties. The decision underscores that even in cases involving caste-based offences, anticipatory bail may be granted where the injury is minor and the accused have no prior record.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for granting anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in a case involving alleged caste-based assault?
- Does the nature of the alleged injury and the absence of prior criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail despite the FIR allegations?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based assault
- simple injury
- no criminal antecedent
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.361 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- SONEBARSA District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Vinay Kumar @ Vinayak Kumar, S/o Janardan Singh, R/o Village- Karsar,
P.S. - Sonversa, District- Buxar
2. Purushotam Dubey @ Purushotam Kumar @ Gudu, S/o Birendra Dubey,
R/o Village- Karsar, P.S. - Sonversa @ Sonbarsa, District- Buxar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Prabhu Kumar, S/o Dayanand Ram, R/O village- Kadsar, P.S.- Sonversa,
Distt. - Buxar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Nath, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Md. Azimuddin, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the respondent no.2.
2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against
the order dated 20.12.2025 passed in A.B.P. no.1222 of 2025 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist –cum– Special Judge,
SC/ST (PoA) Act, Buxar and for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Sonebarsa P.S. Case no.98 of 2025 registered
under sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.361 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that in the night of 2.10.2025, on electricity connection being
cut, 15 to 20 boys including the two appellants herein started
tearing the posters of Baba Saheb. On protest, he was abused in
the name of his caste and also assaulted with a belt. His relative
Akhilesh Kumar was also assaulted. The accused were giving
threats. They somehow escaped.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. No such
occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place. Accepting
the allegations, the nature of injury has been found to be simple
in nature. The appellants have no criminal antecedent and
undertake to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The appeal is opposed by learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent
no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 that the appellants are named in the F.I.R. and
there is direct allegation against them of having abused the
informant in the name of his caste and of having assaulted him
together with the corresponding injury having been found on his
body. The allegations have been supported in the case diary by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.361 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
the witnesses. It is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together
with the injuries having been opined to be simple in nature and
the appellants not having any criminal antecedent, the Court is
inclined to allow the instant appeal.
7. The appeal is allowed and the order dated
20.12.2025 passed in A.B.P. no.1222 of 2025 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge Ist –cum– Special Judge, SC/ST
(PoA) Act, Buxar rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellants is set aside.
8. In the facts of the case, it is directed that both the
appellants above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be
released on anticipatory bail in connection with Sonebarsa P.S
Case no.98 of 2025 on each of them furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge Ist–cum–Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act,
Buxar.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…