Patna High Court
Rameshwar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where cognizance under the SC/ST Act has already been taken, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Rameshwar Mahto appealed to the Patna High Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting his anticipatory bail application in a case registered under Sections 323, 342, 379, 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The State opposed the bail, arguing that cognizance under the SC/ST Act had already been taken. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar, which held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken under the SC/ST Act. Applying that precedent, the Court concluded that the appellant’s anticipatory bail could not be granted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when cognizance has already been taken.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 342, 379, 504
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3955 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2018 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saharsa
======================================================
Rameshwar Mahto S/o- Late Amrit Mahto Resident of village- Gauria Karma
PS- Barahi District-Hazaribagh Jharkhand
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajesh Raut S/o- Late Ram Chandra Raut R/v- Animal Husbandry Colony
Saharsa W.No-2, Ps- Dist- Saharsa
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
24.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st cum
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Saharsa in ABP No. 625 of
2025 in connection with Complaint Case No. 03 of 2018,
registered under Sections 323, 342, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the prayer
for anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that the instant anticipatory bail is not maintainable as from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3955 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
2/2
perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that cognizance
under SC/ST Act has already been taken against the appellant
and in this connection, he refers to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, passed in case of Bachu Das Vs State of Bihar
and others, reported in Cr. Appeal No. 314 of 2014.
4. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in case of Bachu Das (supra), instant appeal filed
for pre-arrest bail to the appellant, is dismissed as being not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…