Patna High Court
Dev Bhushan PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted to the appellant, setting aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
The appeal was filed under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the Special Judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail to Dev Bhushan Pandey in a case involving alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The appellant contended that he had a clean record and was falsely implicated in a land‑sale dispute, noting a two‑and‑a‑half‑year delay between the alleged incident (December 2022) and the FIR (July 2024). The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, which included assault, robbery and caste‑based atrocities. The High Court examined whether the delay and alleged false implication warranted bail and considered the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. It concluded that bail should be granted, imposing a bond of Rs 5,000 with two sureties and directing compliance with Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the trial court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the pending charges under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of false implication affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 379, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 354B, 379
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- land dispute
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
- scheduled caste atrocities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3871 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dev Bhushan Pandey Son of Late Maheshwar Pandey Resident of Village -
Akurahan-Kharge, P.S.- Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Devanti Devi Wife of Bhagirath Ram Resident of Village - Pakhnaha, P.S.-
Minapur, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Tejendra Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
Mr. Yugal Kishore, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026 1. 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 21-8-2025 in A.B.P. No. 2547 of 2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 379 and
34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST
Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3871 of 2025(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that the accused persons including the appellant came to
her house on 11-12-2022 and asked her to provide a jug with
water and two glass for drinking on which she refused when the
accused acted inappropriately and abused by taking caste name
and on alarm when people gathered, the accused persons left
abusing, it is next alleged that the accused had entered into an
agreement with her husband and brother-in-law for selling a
piece of land in the year 2021 for an amount of Rs. 2.25 lakh out
of which Rs. 35 thousand was paid at the time of agreement, but
then the appellant did not execute the sale deed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that on account of dispute
relating to sell and purchase of land, the present false case came
to be instituted after the husband of the informant received the
entire consideration back. It is also submitted that informant
alleges that the occurrence took place on 11-12-2022 and the
FIR came to be instituted on 2-7-2024, i.e., nearly after a delay
of two and half years, which casts an aspersion on the case of
the prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3871 of 2025(4) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellant.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let 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)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.