Patna High Court
Pappu Singh @ Amar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the Special Judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. They contended that the FIR contained vague, omnibus allegations, that the alleged assault and arson occurred inside the informant’s house and not in public view, and that they were falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail but could not effectively rebut the appellants’ arguments. The High Court held that, given the private nature of the incident and the lack of concrete evidence, anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the nature of the allegations in the FIR (general and omnibus) warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the occurrence being confined to the informant’s house and not in public view affects the bail decision.
- Whether the State has sufficiently rebutted the claim of false implication to justify refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 337, 338, 341, 342, 354, 379, 436, 448
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- Criminal Procedure Code
- false implication
- private offence
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4048 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2024 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Pappu Singh @ Amar Singh Son of Durga singh Resident of Village -Budh
Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
2. Dinanath Singh @ Arun Singh Son of Late Ram Chandra Singh Resident of
Village -Budh Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
3. Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son of Bhola Singh Resident of Village
-Budh Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
4. Jaiki Kumar Son of Late Arvind Yadav Resident of Village -Budh Paraiya,
PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
5. Amit Kumar @ Ajit Kumar Son of Amar Singh Resident of Village -Budh
Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
6. Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Raj Son of Deepak Ravani Resident of Village
-Budh Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
7. Nirju Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Son of Ganauri Ram Resident of Village -Budh
Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
8. Ram Prasad Singh Son of Shrawan Singh Resident of Village -Budh Paraiya,
PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
9. Sonal Kumar @ Sonal Singh Son of Shibu Singh Resident of Village -Budh
Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
10. Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Singh Son of Satish Yadav Resident of Village -Budh
Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
11. Tinku Kumar @ Bittu Kumar Son of Shambhu Singh Resident of Village
-Budh Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjeet Kumar Bharti Son of Binda Paswan Resident of Village -Budh
Paraiya, PS- Paraiya, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Subham Singh, Advocate
Mr. Bipin Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl PP
Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Advocate
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4048 of 2024(5) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
5 12-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants; learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Sadanand Paswan 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 10-6-2024 in A.B.P. No. 179 of 2024 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya in
connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 103 of 2024, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448,
341, 342, 323, 307, 354, 337, 338, 436 and 379 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have antecedent of one case, but then the said case
was also instituted by the side of the informant. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that on 24-3-
2024 at 8:15 pm, all the accused persons including the
appellants came variously armed and set the hut on fire and also
abused the informant and his family members by taking caste
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4048 of 2024(5) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
name and assaulted with lathi, danda, fist and slap, on account
of which the informant sustained injury on his right hand and
his uncle sustained injury on head.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation of assault and abuse is general and omnibus in nature.
It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that all
accused in one go would have abused the informant. It is also
submitted that though it is alleged that the hut of the informant
was set on fire, but then the said allegation is an exaggerated
allegation as no hut was put on fire and during the course of
investigation also it has come that burnt sarkanda was found
from the place of occurrence. It is next submitted that the FIR
also does not even remotely suggest that the occurrence was
witnessed by any independent witnesses. It is further submitted
that even presuming what has been alleged is true without
admitting then the entire occurrence took place at the house of
the informant and thus was not in public view and even the
injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in
nature.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4048 of 2024(5) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State along with learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants, but then are not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that the entire occurrence
took place at the house of the informant and thus was not in
public view and allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in
nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
where the case is pending/successor court 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
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…