Patna High Court
Usha DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
Usha Devi, a supervisor in the CDPO office, was accused by her superior of abusing her on a phone call and attempting to assault her on 27 May 2025. The FIR, filed on 4 June 2025, alleged offences under the Bihar Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but did not specify any caste‑based slur. The Additional Sessions Judge refused anticipatory bail on 21 August 2025. The appellant appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, arguing clean antecedents, lack of public view of the alleged phone abuse, and that the assault allegation was ornamental. The High Court held that the refusal of bail was not justified given the insufficiency of the FIR to show a caste‑based offence and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, setting aside the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST Act warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the FIR sufficiently discloses caste‑based abuse to justify refusal of bail.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Penal Code.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based harassment
- FIR
- assault
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3864 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Usha Devi W/o Ramashankar Yadav R/o Village- Baghawa Tiwari Tola, Ward
No. 03, P.S.- Bhore, District- Gopalganj
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manisha Raj W/o Dinesh Kumar R/o Village- Rajaram Narhawa, P.S.-
Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State.
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 21.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1675 of 2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gopalgan in connection with SC/ST P.S.
Case No. 32 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS and Sections
3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
the informant alleges that she is posted as Supervisor in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3864 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
Office of CDPO, further on 27.05.2025 as per official
instruction informant called the appellant on phone and asked
about the development of Aayushman Yojna when she started
abusing, further appellant on 27.05.2025 itself at 12:26 pm came
to the Office and tried to assault and used filthy language.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being her superior, it is next submitted that as far as
allegation of abusing on phone is alleged, the same by no stretch
of imagination can come within public view but then it is
submitted that informant also alleges that on 27.05.2025, the
appellant came to her Office and tried to assault and used filthy
language but then the FIR does not disclose that as to what
filthy language was used by the appellant as it is not alleged that
appellant abused the informant by taking caste name. It is next
submitted that as far as allegation of trying to assault is alleged,
the same is ornamental in nature. It is further submitted that the
date of occurrence is 27.05.2025 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 4.06.2025.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State submits that since
FIR has been instituted by an official, as such, the informant is
being represented by learned Spl.P.P., but then learned Spl.P.P. is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3864 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
not in a position to rebut the submission made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that abuse on
phone does not come within public view and allegation of
assault is ornamental and the FIR does not disclose what filthy
language was used by the appellant.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, the order dated 21.08.2025 in A.B.P. No.
1675 of 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
XI-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gopalgan in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025 is hereby set
aside and the appellant above-named, in the event of his arrest
or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…