Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

AMRESH RAI @ AMRESH KUMAR RAYversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The appeal was disposed, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court, effectively denying anticipatory bail due to the order of cognizance.

Summary

Amresh Rai and Shivam Kumar Ray appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They were charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 34 and SC/ST Act sections 3(i)(r)(s) for allegedly assaulting an informant who claimed they blocked a road and snatched his jewellery. The appellants argued they had clean antecedents, were falsely implicated, the informant did not allege caste‑based abuse, and the offences were bailable, while the prosecution contended that cognizance had been taken and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied. The High Court, while inclined to grant anticipatory bail, held that the order of cognizance precluded it and disposed of the appeal, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court on 1 May 2026 for immediate disposal. The appeal was therefore disposed without granting anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when cognizance has been taken under the SC/ST Act and IPC bailable offences.
  • Whether the absence of a specific caste‑based allegation affects the applicability of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
  • Whether the appellants’ clean antecedent and alleged false implication warrant anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • cognizance
  • Section 18
  • bailable offences
  • false implication
  • IPC offences
  • bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3895 of 2023
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2020 Thana- ASHOK PAPER MILL District-
                                                       Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
           1.     Amresh Rai @ Amresh Kumar Ray S/O Ratnesh Rai R/O Village- Pator, Ps.
                  Pator Op (APM), Dist. Darbhanga
           2.    Shivam Kumar Ray @ Shivam Rai S/O Amresh Rai @ Amresh Kumar Ray
                 R/O Village- Pator, Ps. Pator Op (APM), Dist. Darbhanga
                                                                         ... ... Appellant/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State Of Bihar
           2.     Rajesh Kumar Paswan S/O Sri Bhado Paswan R/O Village- Pator, Tola
                  Mangalpur Ps. Pator Op (apm), Dist. Darbhanga
                                                                ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :        Mr. Saurav Anand
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

8   20-04-2026                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the

                   learned Special P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the

                   respondent no.2.

                               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 21.07.2022

                   passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Darbhanga,

                   in connection with Pator OP (APM) P.S. Case No.59/2020,

                   registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal

                   Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

                               3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

                   despite notice being validly served, the informant chooses not to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3895 of 2023(8) dt.20-04-2026
                                             2/3




          appear and contest. It is next submitted that appellants are persons

          with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 20.02.2020

          at 5.30 P.M. seven named accused persons including the appellants

          had blocked the road by tractor, it is next alleged that informant

          was coming from Mahanpur and when he asked the accused

          persons to give way, they assaulted and snatched his chain and

          ring.

                       4. Learned counsel submits that 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 informant does not allege that he was

          abused by taking caste name rather it is alleged that when he

          requested the appellants to give way, when he was assaulted but

          then allegation of assault is not specific. It is also submitted that

          appellants during the course of investigation cooperated with the

          police as such police never felt the need of arresting the appellants

          but then charge sheet came to be submitted, based on which,

          cognizance was taken under sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the

          Indian Penal Code read with Sections SC/ST Act. It is next

          submitted that offences under the I.P.C. sections were bailable. It is

          also submitted that when the police during the course of

          investigation cooperated with the police as such police never felt

          the need of arresting the appellants, whether it would be prudent
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3895 of 2023(8) dt.20-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                     for the court to send the appellants to jail, based on an order of

                     cognizance.

                                  5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal

                     and submits that since charge sheet has been submitted and

                     cognizance taken, as such, a prima facie offence is made out,

                     hence rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shall apply.

                                  6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

                     Court was inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                     appellants but for the order of cognizance, as such, the appeal is

                     disposed of with a direction to the appellants to surrender before

                     the learned trial court on 01.05.2026, in the event, if the appellants

                     surrender before the learned trial court on 01.05.2026, the learned

                     trial court shall consider and dispose of the case on the same day

                     keeping in mind the fact that police during the course of

                     investigation never made any endeavour to arrest the appellants

                     and cognizance came to be taken under bailable sections of the

                     IPC and informant does not allege that he was abused by taking

                     caste name.

                                  7. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.


                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.