Patna High Court
Vikram Pandit @ Vikram KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail, setting aside the lower court's refusal.
Summary
The appellants, a group of men from the Pandit family, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several sections of the Bihar Penal Code for allegedly assaulting an informant and her son over a wage dispute at the informant's house. The trial court refused anticipatory bail, prompting the appellants to appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court first condoned a six‑day delay in filing the appeal and then examined whether the alleged assault, which occurred inside a private residence and was described in vague terms, warranted denial of bail. Considering the appellants' clean antecedents and the private nature of the alleged incident, the Court held that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to standard conditions. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the appellants directed to furnish bail bonds and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the offences alleged.
- Whether the alleged assault, occurring inside a private dwelling and described in general terms, disqualifies the appellants from bail.
- Whether the six‑day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
- Whether the trial court correctly applied Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale (B.N.S.S.) in refusing bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale (B.N.S.S.) — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126, 303(2), 3(5), 351, 352, 74, 76
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- assault
- private dwelling
- Section 14-A
- bail conditions
- delay condonation
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3848 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Vikram Pandit @ Vikram Kumar Son of Motilal Pandit Resident of Kusmari
PS- Riga District -Sitamarhi
2. Birendra Pandit @ Virendra Pandit son of Bhikhari Pandit Resident of
Kusmari PS- Riga District -Sitamarhi
3. Motilal Pandit Son of Bhikhari Pandit Resident of Kusmari PS- Riga District
-Sitamarhi
4. Mohit Pandit @ Nihit Pandit son of Motilal Pandit Resident of Kusmari PS-
Riga District -Sitamarhi
5. Raja Pandit @ Raja Kumar son of Motilal Pandit Resident of Kusmari PS-
Riga District -Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranju Devi Wife of Late Krishnandan Ram Resident of Kusmari PS- Riga
District -Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and 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 04.06.2025 in SC/ST A.B.P. No. 30 of 2025 passed
by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3848 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025 registered under Sections 126,
74, 76, 352, 351, 115(2), 117(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as
well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act.
3. In view of the grounds taken in the limitation
application, delay of six days in filing the appeal is condoned, as
such, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that her son worked as
labour of Vikram but her son refused to work for Vikram since
he was being paid less wages. Further, on 18.04.2025, in
between 07:00-08:00 p.m., the appellants came to the house of
the informant and started abusing and on objection appellants
assaulted her and her son by an iron chain causing injury on
head and even assaulted the informant on chest by brick and
torn her Saree.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3848 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
account of dispute relating to wages, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is next submitted that if the son of the
informant was not willing to work as a labour, there was
absolutely no occasion for the appellants to go to the house of
the informant for committing the act of abuse and assault. It is
also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is
true without admitting then the allegation of assault and abuse is
general and omnibus in nature and the occurrence did not take
place in public view as the informant herself alleges that the
appellants came to her house and committed the occurrence.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants but then are not
in a position to rebut the said submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that the entire occurrence
took place in the house of the informant and, thus, was not in
public view and allegation of assualt is not specific.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants,
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3848 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.