Patna High Court
Usha DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellants, thereby allowing the appeal.
Summary
The appellants – Usha Devi, Amin Bagvai and Nitu Kumar – were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and threatening him to vacate a community hall, with accusations of caste‑based abuse. They appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14A(2) of the Act against an order dated 08‑05‑2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge‑I‑cum‑Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Banka. The appellants contended that the FIR was vague, the alleged caste abuse was not made in public view, and that the case was false, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand. The High Court, noting the lack of prima‑facie evidence of public caste abuse, held that bail could be granted under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the court directed the release of the appellants on bail of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of assault and caste‑based threat constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge is legally sustainable.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present circumstances.
- Whether the appeal filed under Section 14A(2) is within the limitation prescribed by Section 14A(3) of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- assault
- caste based atrocity
- criminal appeal
- limitation
- Section 14A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3802 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- PANJWARA District- Banka
======================================================
1. Usha Devi Wife of Amin Bagvai @ Amin Bagave Resident of village-
Beltikari, Police Station- Panjawara, District- Banka
2. Amin Bagvai @ Amin Bagave Son of Late Gorakhi Bagave Resident of
village- Beltikari, Police Station- Panjawara, District- Banka
3. Nitu Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Son of Amin Bagvai @ Amin Bagave Resident
of village- Beltikari, Police Station- Panjawara, District- Banka
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dashrath Harijan Son of Late Pati Harijan Resident of village- Beltikari,
Police Station- Panjawara, District- Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajay Mukherjee
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has 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 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Banka, in A.B.P. No.
119/2025 in connection with Panjawara P.S. Case No. 1/2025
registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 352 of the BNS and
Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3802 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Despite service of notice to respondent no. 2,
informant failed to join the present Court proceedings.
5. Allegation against the appellants is to assault
informant and threatened him to vacate the community hall.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that appellants were implicated falsely with present
case, as FIR nowhere disclose the specific date qua occurrence. It
is submitted that mere on the basis of advancing threat this false
case was lodged. It is also submitted that allegation qua abusing
caste name in public view not appears available against appellants
who are men of clean antecedent. In support of his submission
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand, [(2020) 10 SCC 710].
7. Learned Special P.P. opposed the prayer of bail.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned
above and by taking note of fact as prima-facie implication of
appellants appears on the basis of advancing threat and abusing in
caste name, which prima-facie not appears to be made in public
view, accordingly, all above-named appellants in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3802 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
of four weeks of the order, are directed to be released on bail
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-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST
Act, Banka/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with A.B.P. No. 119/2025 in connection with
Panjawara P.S. Case No. 1/2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 08.05.2025 is
hereby set aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…