Patna High Court
Radhika DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, five individuals including three women, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale (BNSS) for alleged kidnapping and caste-based abuse of a minor girl. The informant claimed the girl was abducted by a person named Mantosh on 19 March 2025, but the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS did not support the prosecution’s case. The Special Judge refused anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, prompting the appellants to appeal. The High Court examined the lack of victim cooperation and the claim of false implication, finding no justification to deny bail. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, allowing the appeal to be allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the victim’s statement does not support the prosecution.
- Whether the Special Judge erred in refusing bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- victim statement
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
- caste-based offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4019 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Radhika Devi W/o- Bhola Sah R/v- Harpur Basdeo Milki, P.S.- Minapur,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
2. Bhola Sah S/o- Late Thaga Sah R/v- Harpur Basdeo Milki, P.S.- Minapur,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
3. Sanju Devi W/o- Ganesh Kumar R/v- Harpur Basdeo Milki, P.S.- Minapur,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
4. Rani KUmari W/o- Santosh Kumar R/v- Harpur Basdeo Milki, P.S.-
Minapur, Dist- Muzaffarpur
5. Santosh Kumar S/o- Bhola Sah R/v- Harpur Basdeo Milki, P.S.- Minapur,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rinku Devi W/o- Lalbabu Chaudhari R/v- Harpur Bax, P.S.- Minapur, Dist-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special P.P. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
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 17.07.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1944/2025 passed by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4019 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in
connection with Meenapur P.S. Case No. 103/2025 registered
under Sections 137(2), 96, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as
well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant no.1, 2, 3 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent and
appellant no.5 has antecedent of one case and appellant no.1, 3
and 4 are women and the informant alleges that her minor
daughter was kidnapped by Mantosh on 19.03.2025,
accordingly she went to the house of Mantosh, when accused
persons abused her by taking caste name and threatened not to
institute the case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being related to Mantosh. It is also submitted that the
date of occurrence is 19.03.2025 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 25.03.2025. It is next submitted that the victim
came back and her statement was recorded under Section 183
BNSS, wherein she has not supported the case of the
prosecution rather has stated that she had gone on her own
volition.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4019 of 2025(5) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal
but then fairly submits after perusing the case diary that victim
has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded
under Section 183 BNSS.
6. Considering the submissions, the order impugned
is set aside. Let the appellants, above named, in the event of
their 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 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…