Patna High Court
Hariom SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court held that the SC/ST Act does not apply to the matrimonial dispute and granted bail to the appellant, setting aside the lower court's refusal.
Summary
Hariom Sharma was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several IPC provisions for allegedly entering into a second marriage and evicting the complainant, his first wife, using caste-based abuse. The Special Judge had refused bail, treating the allegations as offences under the SC/ST Act. On appeal, the appellant argued that the matters concerned only a matrimonial dispute and that the alleged bigamy is a bailable offence, not attracting the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the nature of the allegations and held that the SC/ST Act was not applicable to the matrimonial dispute, and that bail could be granted. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of bigamy and caste-based abuse attract the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether bail can be granted to the appellant in view of the charges under the SC/ST Act and the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 341, 494, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- bigamy
- caste harassment
- criminal procedure
- scheduled castes
- maintenance
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4044 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Hariom Sharma S/o Nagendra Sharma R/o Village - Shripur Gahar, P.S -
Hathauri, District - Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Soni Kumari W/o Hariom Sharma D/o Dilip Raut, R/o - Gandhi Park,
Railway Colony Marg 1, Quarter No. L/29-F, P.S - Town, District -
Samastipur At present R/o - Punjabi Colony Ward No. 1, P.S - Town, District
- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shishir Kumar Shishir, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
For the Complainant : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the Complainant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal
of prayer for bail vide order dated 04.09.2025 passed in B.P. No.
1630 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T.
(POA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Complaint Case No.
216 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 313, 494, 341, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4044 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The case of the complainant based on complaint
petition in short is that the complainant and the appellant were
living together at Samastipur. There relationship developed into
courtship. It is further alleged that the appellant started
establishing physical relationship on the promise of marriage. It
is further alleged that they have solemnized marriage on
18.01.2022 through affidavit. It is further alleged that the
appellant has solemnized other marriage also and has ousted the
complainant from his house by abusing her with caste name.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from
perusal of the complain petition it is clear that the allegation
against the appellant is only that he has solemnized other
marriage and that he has ousted the complainant from his house
by abusing her with caste name. Learned counsel for the
appellant has further submitted that as far as the allegation of
bigamy is concerned, the same is bailable and it is totally a
matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and no part of
SC/ST Act is attracted.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant is present and
has vehemently opposed the bail to the appellant and has stated
that since the complainant is married with the appellant, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4044 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
should at least pay maintenance. In this regard, he is directed to
raise his voice before competent forum for maintenance.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in
B.P. No. 1630 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Complaint
Case No. 216 of 2022 is hereby set aside and the appellant
above-named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court of
Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Samastipur in connection with
Complaint Case No. 216 of 2022, B.P. No. 1630 of 2025.
7. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…