Patna High Court
Rajnish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order denying bail is set aside and the appellants are released on bail.
Summary
The appellants, Rajnish Kumar and Bikash Kumar Ray, appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an order dated 03‑09‑2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge‑1 cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bhojpur, which had denied bail in a case alleging firing on an informant and caste‑based abuse. The FIR listed offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and various provisions of the SC/ST Act, but the High Court found the allegation of firing to be vague and the caste‑based abuse not shown to have been made in public view. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that the allegations were insufficient to justify denial of bail. Consequently, the Court directed the appellants to be released on bail of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) of the CrPC, and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of firing and caste‑based abuse in the FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the order of the Special Judge is maintainable within the limitation period prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the circumstances of the case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(i)(r)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- firing allegation
- limitation period
- Criminal Procedure Code
- quash order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3816 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Rajnish Kumar Manoj Kumar Rai @ Manoj Kumar Rai Resident of Village -
Ramnagar, P.S. - Tarari, Dist. - Bhojpur.
2. Bikash Kumar Ray @ Bikash Kumar Son of Manoj Kumar Ray @ Manoj
Kumar Rai Resident of Village - Ramnagar, P.S. - Tarari, Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Krishna Kumar Son of Vijay Ram Resident of Village - Beldihari, P.S. -
Sikarhatta, Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
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 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bhojpur at Ara, in
connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025 registered
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2), 190, 109, 352 and
351(2) of the BNS, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(i)
(r)/3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed
under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3816 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
4. Despite service of notice to respondent no. 2,
informant failed to join the present Court proceedings.
5. As per FIR appellants along with other co-accused
persons open fired upon informant and also started abusing in
caste name, while they were sitting in a temple. Informant claimed
himself to be member of Schedule Caste community.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that allegation of firing is not available against
appellants rather same was raised in very general and omnibus
manner just to aggravate the allegation, where no injury was
caused out of alleged firing. It is also submitted that allegation qua
abusing in caste name in public view not appears available and
moreover appellants 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 aforesaid facts and circumstances, as
mentioned above and by taking note of fact as allegation of firing
appears very much general and omnibus in nature and abusing in
caste name also not appears to be made in public view,
accordingly, both above-named appellants in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3816 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period
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 ADJ 1st cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bhojpur at
Ara/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with
Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 03.09.2025 is
hereby set aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…