Patna High Court
Md. Hakeem Miya @ Md. HakeemversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the appellant’s involvement was only on suspicion, no public caste‑abuse allegation existed, and therefore bail was warranted, leading to the quashing of the lower court’s order.
Summary
The appellant, Md. Hakeem Miya, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly kidnapping a 14‑year‑old daughter of an informant belonging to a Scheduled Caste, purportedly for illicit intercourse or marriage. The appellant contended that the kidnapping allegation was directed at co‑accused Md. Mujahir and that his own involvement was limited to being part of a crowd, with no specific allegation of caste‑based abuse made in public. The Special Judge had denied bail, prompting the appellant to file an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act, which was within the statutory limitation period. The Patna High Court examined whether the appellant’s alleged participation and the absence of a public caste‑abuse allegation justified denial of bail. Finding that the appellant’s implication was merely on suspicion and that no caste‑abuse claim was substantiated, the Court granted bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant’s alleged participation, limited to being part of a crowd, suffices to deny bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether any allegation of caste‑based abuse was made in public view against the appellant.
- Whether the appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is within the limitation period prescribed by Section 14A(3).
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the circumstances of the case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 137(2), 96
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- kidnapping
- minor
- caste abuse
- suspicion
- appeal
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3814 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
Md. Hakeem Miya @ Md. Hakeem S/O Md. Samid Miya R/O Village-
Bhatkhora, Mushharniya Rahi, Ward No.- 05, P.S- Murliganj, Distt.-
Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Poonam Devi W/O Lalan Rishideo R/O Village- Bhatkhora, Mushharniya
Rahi, Ward No.-06, P.S- Murliganj, Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 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 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, Madhepura, in A.B.P. No.
1061/2025 in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 162/2025
registered under Sections 96/137(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(i)
(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed
under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Despite service of notice to respondent no. 2,
informant failed to join the present Court proceedings.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3814 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
5. As per FIR, co-accused Md. Mujahir and others with
involvement of appellant kidnapped the minor daughter of
informant aged about 14 years for the purpose of illicit
intercourse/marriage. Informant claimed herself to be member of
Schedule Caste community.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that specific allegation as to kidnap the minor daughter of
informant is available against co-accused Md. Mujahir, where this
appellant appears implicated only for the reasons as he was part of
the crowd and on the basis of suspicion he was implicated with
present case. It is also submitted that allegation qua abusing caste
name in public view not appears available and moreover appellant
is a man 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 appellant with the present case is merely on the
basis of suspicion rather same is specifically available against co-
accued Md. Mujahir and abusing in caste name also not appears to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3814 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
be made in public view, accordingly, above-named appellant in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court,
within a period of four weeks of the order, is 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 District and Sessions Judge
1st cum Special Judge, Madhepura/concerned Court, where the
case is pending in connection with A.B.P. No. 1061/2025 in
connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 162/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 22.08.2025 is
hereby set aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…