Patna High Court
VASIST SAH @ VASIST KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
No offence under the SC/ST Act is made out; therefore, anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant.
Summary
Vasist Kumar was charged under several IPC provisions and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly stopping a motorcycle, insulting the victims on caste grounds, assaulting them and snatching a gold chain. The appellant contended that the FIR was filed 22 days after the incident without explanation, that the allegations against him were vague and that no specific act attributable to him was shown. The State opposed anticipatory bail, citing a prior criminal antecedent, while the appellant’s counsel argued innocence and highlighted that a co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The High Court held that the facts did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act and, applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC, granted anticipatory bail with a bond and several conditions. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to the alleged conduct.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC despite a criminal antecedent.
- The adequacy of the FIR and the presence of specific allegations against the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 14(A)(2), 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- criminal antecedent
- common intention
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3697 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2022 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Vasist Sah @ Vasist Kumar S/O Dukhi Sah @ Shamdev Sah R/O Village-
Panditpur, P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Santosh Ram S/O Shivdayal Ram Resident Of Village Panditpur, P.O.
Paharpur Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for the
State.
2. Despite of valid service of notice upon respondent
no. 2, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated
10.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA)
Act, Motihari, East Champaran A.B.A No. 3122/2023 in
connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 192/2022, F.I.R. dated
03.06.2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3697 of 2023(5) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
(i) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, the informant
along with his father was going on motorcycle, then all the
accused persons including the appellant stopped the motorcycle
of the informant and also abused them by taking their caste
name and assaulted them. Further, the co-accused, Sanjay Yadav
snatched a gold chain from the informant,
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the appellant has not
committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. Although from
the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the date of occurrence is
11.05.2022 but the present F.I.R. has been instituted on
03.06.2022 i.e., after delay of more than twenty two days
without giving any explanation of the said delay. Apart from that
it appears that there is no specific allegation of overt act
attributed against the appellant rather there is general and
omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including this
appellant and for the same set of allegation the co-accused
person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court
vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3697 of 2023(5) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
1960 of 2023.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant on
the ground that appellant carries one criminal antecedent other
than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of
paragraph-3 of the bail application that the appellant is on bail
in the said matter.
7. After hearing the parties, in my view for the
purpose of this anticipatory bail, no offence under the provisions
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out.
8. Hence, let the appellant, above named, in the event
of his arrest to surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Motihari, East Champaran A.B.A No. 3122/2023 in connection
with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 192/2022, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3697 of 2023(5) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
atul/-
U T
Checking your session…