Patna High Court
K. D. Verma @ Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the appellant, being prima facie part of the armed mob and implicated in a caste‑based atrocity, is not eligible for anticipatory bail.
Summary
K.D. Verma appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking anticipatory bail after a trial court refused it. The FIR alleges that Verma was one of eighteen accused who, armed with firearms, entered the informant’s house and murdered her daughter and nephew, an incident said to stem from inter‑community rivalry. The defence argued that Verma’s role was not specifically linked to the fatal injuries and that the alleged caste abuse was not made in public, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand. The State contended that the offence qualified as a caste‑based atrocity under the Act, that the informant eyewitness identified Verma as armed, and that similar co‑accused had been denied bail in earlier cases. The court held that, on a prima‑facie basis, Verma was part of the armed mob and the allegations fell within the ambit of the SC/ST Act, and therefore his anticipatory bail could not be granted. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged participation in an armed mob justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the precedent set in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand is applicable to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(i), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- caste atrocity
- murder
- armed mob
- bail denial
- scheduled caste
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3808 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- DEEPNAGAR District- Nalanda
======================================================
K. D. Verma @ Ranjeet Kumar Son of Suresh Mahto Resident of
Village - Dumrawa, Police Station - Deep Nagar, District - Nalanda.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushila Devi Wife of Om Prakash Paswan Resident of Village -
Dumrawa, Police Station - Deep Nagar, District - Nalanda.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr.Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned
Spl.PP for the State duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.
2.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) against the refusal of prayer for
anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3808 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/5
A.B.P. No. 1633/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge – VI – cum – Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Biharsharif, Nalanda in connection with Deep Nagar P.S. Case
No. 294 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 103(i), 61(2) of the
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short the “B.N.S.”); Section
25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. As per FIR, eighteen (18) co-accused persons
including the appellant alongwith some other unknown
accused persons, each equipped with fire-arms/weapons
trespassed to the house of the informant and committed
murder of her daughter and nephew. Occurrence is alleged to
be arising out of previous enmity surfaced due to quarrel
amongst children of both communities.
4. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel,
while arguing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that
appellant was the part of mob, where specific allegation to
cause fatal fire-arm injury is available against co-accused
Kaushal Kumar @ Kaliya and Prashant Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3808 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
3/5
5. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that appellant
implicated with this case out of community rivalry with the aid
of section 190 of the B.N.S.S.
6. Arguing further, Mr. Singh submitted that
allegation of abuse by taking caste name also not appears in
public place. Mr. Singh relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Hitesh Verma Vs.
State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.
7. Learned Special P.P. for the State duly assisted
by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
informant, while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail of
the appellant, submitted that it is a case of double murder
where after criminal trespass, eighteen (18) accused persons
including this appellant, who was also equipped with fire-
arms, committed the murder of nephew and daughter of the
informant.
8. It is submitted that informant is the eye witness
of the occurrence and she categorically alleged that this
appellant was also equipped with arms alongwith others,
though he fairly submitted that allegation as to cause fatal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3808 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
4/5
fire-arm injury is available against Kaushal Kumar @ Kaliya
and Prashant Kumar.
9. It is also submitted that occurrence took place
due to atrocities as defined with the meaning of the Act as the
family of informant was the member of scheduled castes
community. It is submitted that caste name abuse was made
in public view.
10. It is further argued that even the regular bail of
similar situated co-accused persons has been rejected by
different learned coordinate Benches of this Court through Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 4102 of 2025 dated 22.01.2026; Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No.3746 of 2025 dated 20.11.2025; Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.4121 of 2025 dated 29.01.2026; Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.4046 of 2025 dated 22.01.2026; and, therefore, as a
matter of judicial parity, the anticipatory bail of the appellant
be rejected.
11. It is pointed out that during course of
investigation, different prosecution witnesses also supported
the involvement of the appellant in the alleged occurrence and
in support of this submission, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3808 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
5/5
informant drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph
nos. 65, 66 & 67 of the case diary.
12. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as prima-facie appellant, being a part
of the mob, appears actively involved in the occurrence and
further alleged to be equipped with weapon, as per FIR,
where informant is the eye witness of the occurrence,
accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellant stands
rejected.
13. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.