Patna High Court
Rajnish Singh @ Rajnish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the appellant's anticipatory bail, setting aside the lower court's refusal.
Summary
The appellant, Rajnish Singh, was charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly causing a road accident involving his vehicle and threatening the victim's family. He contended that he was falsely implicated, did not drive the vehicle, suffers a 50% disability, and that the FIR was filed more than three days after the incident, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. He appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the trial court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the appellant’s clean antecedent, disability, and the delay in filing the FIR, granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant despite charges under the SC/ST Act and multiple IPC offences
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the appellant’s disability justify granting bail
- Whether the appellant’s claim of not driving the vehicle affects liability under the SC/ST Act
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 279, 337, 338, 34, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- disability
- delay in FIR
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3989 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2024 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna
======================================================
Rajnish Singh @ Rajnish Kumar Son of Arjun Singh R/o Lahsuna, Jaunpuri,
Lahsuna, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna, Bihar 804452
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chando Devi Wife of Raju Das R/o Gram Makdumpur Jaunpura, P.S.-
Punpun, District- Patna, Bihar 804452
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Adv.
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 30-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.I 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 27.06.2024 in connection with Punpun P.S. Case
No.01/2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Civil Court (Sadar) Patna, registered under Sections
279, 337, 338, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2024(5) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that her minor daughter on 28.12.2023 at 9.30 A.M. was
going to attend call of nature when she was dashed by a Scorpio
vehicle bearing registration no.BR02Y6562, further the Scorpio
belonged to the appellant, next alleges that family members of
the appellant abused by taking caste name and threatened not to
institute an FIR or else would be killed and the injured was
taken to the hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the date
of occurrence is 28.12.2023 and the FIR came to be instituted
on 01.01.2024 i.e. after a delay of more than three days, which
casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the same does not attribute the
accident to the appellant but then it is alleged that the vehicle by
which the accident was committed belongs to the appellant. It is
submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein
the disability certificate of the appellant has been brought on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2024(5) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
record by way of Annexure-P/2 and from perusal of the same, it
would manifest that appellant suffered from disability of 50%. It
is next submitted that appellant does not drive the car.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant, let the appellant, above named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned court below where the case is pending in connection
with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…