Patna High Court
Dhrub Choudhary @ Dhrub Kumar Choudhary @ Dhruv Kumar ChowdharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
No offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out, and anticipatory bail is granted.
Summary
The appellant, Dhrub Choudhary, was charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and using caste-based abusive language during a land dispute. He contended that the alleged abuse occurred inside the informant's house, not a public place, and that no intention to humiliate a Scheduled Caste member existed, citing paragraph 18 of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710. The State opposed anticipatory bail, pointing to two prior criminal antecedents. The High Court held that the facts did not establish an offence under the SC/ST Act and, consequently, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC with specific conditions, setting aside the lower court’s refusal. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in view of the alleged offences and the appellant's criminal antecedents.
- Whether the lower court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail was legally justified.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- caste abuse
- land dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4002 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2023 Thana- BANMANKHI District- Purnia
======================================================
Dhrub Choudhary @ Dhrub Kumar Choudhary @ Dhruv Kumar Chowdhary
S/o Tej Narayan Chaudhary Resident of village - Lohapatti, Ward No. 08, P.S
- Banmankhi, District - Purnea
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kishan Kumar Uraon S/o Late Shivanand Uraon R/o Mohalla - Hridaya
Nagar, Ward No. 1, P.S - Banmankhi, District - Purnea
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Sp.PP
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 08-05-2026 Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant, Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for the
State and Mr. Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 2.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated
25.08.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Purnea in
connection with Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 260/2023, F.I.R.
dated 07.06.2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506,
467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1) (i) (r) (s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4002 of 2025(5) dt.08-05-2026
2/5
Scheduled Tribes Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant
and the co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the
informant and abused him by calling his caste name.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The co-accused persons, namely, Suman Kumar
Choudhar and Rita Choudhary have been granted bail by this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No. 4584/2023. He further submits that it appears from the
F.I.R. itself that due to admitted land dispute the present
occurrence had taken place and the informant has alleged that
the appellant has used the abusing language against the
informant but the place of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is
in the house of the informant, so the appellant has not abused in
the public place and hence no case is made out under SC/ST Act
against the appellant and apart from that in view of the
judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand & Anr., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710,
paragraph-18 which reads as follows:-
“18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4002 of 2025(5) dt.08-05-2026
3/5
informant is a member of Scheduled Caste
unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs
to such caste. In the present case, the parties
are litigating over possession of the land.
The allegation of hurling of abuses is
against a person who claims title over the
property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section
3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.”
5. Paragraph-18 of the aforesaid judgment and in the
background of the land dispute, no case is made out under
SC/ST Act against the appellant.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant
and submits that appellant carries two more criminal antecedent
other than the present one.
7. After hearing the parties, in my view for the
purpose of this anticipatory bail, no offence under the provisions
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out.
8. Hence, let the appellant, above named, in the event
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4002 of 2025(5) dt.08-05-2026
4/5
of his arrest to surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Purnea in connection with
Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 260/2023, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4002 of 2025(5) dt.08-05-2026
5/5
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
atul/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.