Patna High Court
Malti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant and setting aside the Special Judge's order.
Summary
The appellant, Malti Devi, mother‑in‑law of a Scheduled Caste woman, was named in an FIR alleging offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 504/34 and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act arising from a dispute over an inter‑caste marriage. The Special Judge had rejected her anticipatory bail application, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant contended that the FIR was filed maliciously to harass her and that she was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The State opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after considering the familial dispute and the claim of mala fide prosecution, granted anticipatory bail, set aside the Special Judge’s order, and directed that bail be released on furnishing a bond and sureties if she is arrested within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged SC/ST atrocities.
- Whether the FIR constitutes an abuse of process and is mala fide, justifying bail.
- Whether the Special Judge's rejection of anticipatory bail should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1), 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i)(x)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- inter‑caste marriage
- abuse of process
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3892 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2016 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
Malti Devi W/o Late Devgan Prasad R/o Village- Karu Bigha, P.S.- Nimchak
Bathani, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Soni Mole Kumari D/o Sri Girami Manjhi R/o Village- Bahuara, P.S.-
Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Swati Parmar, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nawal Kishore, Sp.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. An order, dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya, in ABP No. 202 of 2024, is
under challenge in the present appeal preferred under Section
14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the anticipatory bail
application of the appellant in connection with Nimchak Bathani
Police Station Case No. 14 of 2016 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(i) (x) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3892 of 2024(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that O.P. No. 2 solemnized love marriage with the son
of the informant on 27.11.2025. It is alleged that appellant who
is mother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2, abused and kicked her out of
the matrimonial home on the ground that why she has
performed inter-caste marriage with her son without consent of
the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
present F.I.R. has been lodged in abuse of the process of law and
with mala fide intention against the appellant, who is the
mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 belongs to the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category, whereas the
appellant belongs to a different caste. The present FIR is not
bona fide. During the course of investigation, the appellant was
given the benefit of Section 41(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Now that the charge-sheet has been submitted and
cognizance has been taken by the learned court below, the
appellant apprehends arrest and, therefore, seeks the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
5. No-one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.
6. Mr. Nawal Kishore, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State, is present and opposed the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3892 of 2024(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail.
7. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is
a dispute between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law on the
ground that the appellant’s son had performed inter-caste
marriage, I am inclined to grant the appellant privilege of
anticipatory bail.
8. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order,
dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Gaya, in ABP No. 202 of 2024, is set aside.
9. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya, in
connection with Nimchak Bathani Police Station Case No. 14 of
2016 subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…