Patna High Court
Shital RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations and risk of flight warranted the appellants' continued custody.
Summary
The appellants, Shital Rai and his sons, appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking anticipatory bail after a lower court refused it. The case arose from a land‑dispute in which the informant’s brother died; the informant alleged that the appellants threatened him and were present at the scene. The appellants contended that the FIR was based on suspicion, that the informant was not an eyewitness, and that the post‑mortem indicated death by electric shock and blunt injury, not a homicide by them. The respondents argued that the death was recorded as a homicide with head injuries, that interrogation of the appellants was necessary, and that granting bail could enable them to abscond, especially since a Section 82 Cr.P.C. process had already been issued. After considering the submissions, the court held that the circumstances did not justify anticipatory bail and rejected the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act when the FIR discloses a prima facie case of homicide.
- Whether the appellants pose a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR are sufficient to deny bail pending investigation.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- flight risk
- murder investigation
- false implication
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3832 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Shital Rai S/O Late Jhingur Rai Resident of Ibrahimpur, Ward no. 7, P.S.-
Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
2. Vijay Rai @ Vijay Kumar S/O Shital Rai Resident of Ibrahimpur, Ward no.
7, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
3. Triveni Rai S/O Shital Rail Resident of Ibrahimpur, Ward no. 7, P.S.-
Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
4. Ragho Rai S/O Shital Rai Resident of Ibrahimpur, Ward no. 7, P.S.-
Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Baijnath Baitha S/O Bangali Baitha Resident of Ibrahimpur, Ward no. 7,
P.S.- Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants Mr.
Vindhya Kesri Singh, learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari
No.1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 01.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 42/2025, arising out of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3832 of 2025(4) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.187/2025 passed by the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Sitamarhi registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS,
2023 and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have antecedent of one case
and the informant alleges that on 13.05.2025, his brother had an
altercation with Sheetal with regard to a land of Math and his
brother was threatened, further on 14.05.2025, his brother went
to his field but did not return till 8 P.M., thus a search was made
and the informant saw Sheetal along with his son sitting in the
field and on seeing the informant they fled and the dead body of
his brother was recovered from the field.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits
that appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case
by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, as such the
entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is also submitted
that from perusal of the postmortem report, it would manifest
that the same records- sudden cardiac arrest leading to CR
failure, as a result of burn injury, due to electric shock and head
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3832 of 2025(4) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
injury caused by hard blunt object. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the postmortem report, it appears that brother of the
appellants on account of receiving electric shock, died and the
informant, on account of previous dispute, implicated the
appellants.
5. Learned Special P.P. and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits
that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that brother
of the informant died. It is also submitted that how the death
took place is an aspect of investigation but then in the FIR, it is
alleged that earlier Sheetal had threatened the brother of the
informant of dire consequences, on account of dispute, relating
to a Math land and the informant also specifically alleges that
when search was made for locating the victim, the informant
came at the place of occurrence and saw Sheetal and his son
sitting and when they saw the informant, they fled and
thereafter, the dead body was recovered. It is also submitted that
postmortem report also records injury on head of the deceased
caused by hard and blunt object. It is thus submitted that all
these aspects requires requires to be investigated, for which
interrogation of the appellants is necessary. It is next submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3832 of 2025(4) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants,
the appellants may abscond. It is also submitted that process
under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the appellants
in October, 2025.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
also taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the court
is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the appellants is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…