Patna High Court
Meena DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is maintainable even after issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and the appeal is allowed.
Summary
The appellants, including Meena Devi and four male relatives, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Non-Applicable Sections (BNSS) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant who claimed he was attacked after a dispute. They sought anticipatory bail, but the Special Judge refused it. The appellants argued they have clean records, the FIR lacks specific caste-based allegations, and that anticipatory bail can still be granted even after a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, citing a precedent (Mohammad Raja v. State of Bihar). The State opposed the bail. The Patna High Court held that anticipatory bail is maintainable despite the notice, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted bail with conditions, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS has been issued.
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act are sufficiently specific to deny bail.
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge was legally justified.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(A), 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 35 notice
- bail jurisprudence
- caste-based offence
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3874 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2025 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Meena Devi W/O Deena Chaudhary R/O Village- Saristapur, Ward No-12,
PS- Athmalgola, District- Patna.
2. Ram Kishun Sahani @ Ram Kishun Chaudhary S/O Vilas Sahani @ Ram
Vilas Chaudhary R/O Village- Saristapur, Ward No-12, PS- Athmalgola,
District- Patna.
3. Sudama Sahani S/O Vilas Sahani @ Ram Vilas Chaudhary R/O Village-
Saristapur, Ward No-12, PS- Athmalgola, District- Patna.
4. Man Singh Sahani @ Rajesh Kumar S/O Karu Sahani R/O Village-
Saristapur, Ward No-12, PS- Athmalgola, District- Patna.
5. Dularchand Sahani @ Dularchand Chaudhary S/O Lakhan Sahani R/O
Village- Saristapur, Ward No-12, PS- Athmalgola, District- Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kailendra Paswan S/O Late Babu Lal Paswan R/O Village- Sahistapur, Ward
No. 12, P.S- Athmalgola, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms.Bindu Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Binay Krishna.
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 20-8-2025 in A.B.P. No. 3417 of 2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Patna in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3874 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
connection with SC/ST Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 230 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and appellant no. 1
is a woman and the informant alleges that on 27-6-2025 at 8 pm,
he was going to his new house, when mistakenly touched the
feet of Meena, who started abusing, thereafter Ramkishun,
Sudama, Man Singh and Dularchand came and assaulted him by
lathi and bricks causing injury on head, further accused persons
also assaulted his son Gaurav, who came to save him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation of assault is not specific and the informant does not
allege that he was abused by taking caste name. It is further
submitted that appellants have been issued notice under Section
35(3) BNSS, but then it is submitted that the Division Bench of
this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc No. 65700 of 2025 (Mohammad
Raja vs, the State of Bihar & Anr.) has held by judgement dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3874 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
16-12-2025 that even after issuance of notice under Section
41(A) Cr.P.C/35(3) BNSS, anticipatory bail is maintainable. It is
thus submitted that no doubt notice under Section 35 BNSS has
been given to the appellants but then police may arrest despite
the fact that allegation of assault is not specific.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
above-named, in the event of their 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 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…