Patna High Court
Premshankar Chaudhary @ Prem Shankar ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the alleged caste insult was not made in public view and the matter was essentially a civil dispute, warranting the quashing of the Special Judge’s order and the grant of bail.
Summary
The appellants – Premshankar Chaudhary, Golu and Prakash Chandra Mishra – appealed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an order dated 31 July 2025 of the Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST Act) that had refused bail in a case arising from a land‑deal dispute. The FIR alleged that the appellants failed to return an advance of Rs 25 lakh and that they had abused the informant’s caste name. The appellants contended that the matter was essentially a civil dispute over land and that any alleged caste‑based abuse was not made in public view, rendering the criminal complaint untenable. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the abuse occurred in a public place and therefore satisfied the “public view” requirement. The court examined the factual matrix, held that the alleged caste insult was not prima facie made in public view and that the dispute was civil in nature, and consequently granted bail and set aside the Special Judge’s order. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged caste‑based insult satisfies the ‘public view’ requirement under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether a civil land‑transaction dispute can give rise to a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the circumstances.
- Whether the order of the Exclusive Special Judge can be quashed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 385, 404, 406, 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- caste atrocity
- public view
- civil dispute
- land transaction
- bail
- quash order
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3752 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-980 Year-2024 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Premshankar Chaudhary @ Prem Shankar Chaudhary S/o- Late Yugeshwar
Chaudhary @ Late Yogeshwar Chaudhary R/o village- Darhar PS-
Bahadurpur District-Darbhanga.
2. Golu @ Gandharb Kumar S/o- Premshankar Chaudhary @ Prem Shankar
Chaudhary R/o village- Darhar PS-Bahadurpur District-Darbhanga.
3. Prakash Chandra Mishra S/o- Kripanath Mishra R/o Mohalla- Mirjapur PS-
Nagar (Sasural Mabbi) District-Darbhanga.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Arun Kumar S/o- Rajendra Chaudhary R/o village- Jadhua PS-Hajipur
Nagar District-Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special P.P. for the State.
2. The appellants have preferred the present appeal
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) against
the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive
Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-District and Additional Sessions
Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in A.B.P. No. 1843/2025 arising out of
Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 980/2024 registered under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 316(2), 318(4), 308(3), 303(2), 352, 351(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 3752 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Correspondence to 341, 323, 406, 420, 385,
379, 504, 506, 34 of IPC) read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST
(POA) Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed
under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. As per FIR, appellants failed to return Rs. 25 lacs to
the informant which was given to him as an advance money in
cash for purchase of piece of land and when agreement failed to
take its final shape demand was raised. Allegation of caste name is
also available against appellants. Informant claimed him a member
of scheduled caste community.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the present false case was lodged in the
background of the land dispute. It is submitted that the dispute is
purely civil in nature and for that present criminal case is
completely unoccasioned and unwarranted. It is submitted that the
implication is also for the reason that appellant no. 1 was the
witness in ED case against the informant. It is pointed out that the
allegation in caste name also not appears to be made in public view
and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out. In support of his
submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Hitesh Verma Vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 3752 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and Gulam
Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 603 .
6. Learned Special P.P. duly assisted by learned counsel
Mr. Keshab Raj, appearing for the informant, while opposing the
prayer of bail submitted that the abuse in caste name was made in
public view as it occurred at a public place as the “Mama Bhanja” is
a name of place. However, he conceded that the occurrence took
place in the background of non-returning of amount received by
appellants for purchase of piece of land.
7. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel
appearing for the informant submitted that public place and public
view both are different things and the relevant fact is the public
view not the public place.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking
note of fact as the disputes primarily appears civil in nature qua
recovery of payment appears to made in connection with land deal,
coupled with the fact that abuse in caste name prima facie not
appears to be made in public view, as discussed aforesaid,
accordingly, all above-named appellants in the event of their arrest
or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of six
weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 3752 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-District and Additional
Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur/concerned court, where the
case is pending in connection with A.B.P. No. 1843/2025 arising
out of Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 980/2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 31.07.2025 as
passed through A.B.P. No. 1843/2025 is hereby set
aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.