Patna High Court
Uttam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal was disposed of without granting anticipatory bail, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court, with the trial court to consider the benefit of Section 41A and their cooperation.
Summary
Uttam Kumar and Gautam Kumar were charged under several IPC offences and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case registered at Gaya. During investigation they received a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC, cooperated fully and were not arrested, yet a charge‑sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. They applied for anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the Exclusive Special Judge refused the prayer. On appeal, the High Court considered whether cognizance alone justified denial of bail despite the police’s lack of arrest and the appellants’ cooperation, and examined the applicability of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act which imposes a presumption against bail. The Court, while inclined to extend anticipatory bail, ultimately disposed of the appeal, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court on a specified date. The trial court was instructed to dispose of the matter on the same day, taking into account the benefit of Section 41A and the cooperation shown by the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act when cognizance has been taken.
- Whether the presumption against bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies in the present facts.
- Whether the fact that police did not arrest the accused and they cooperated with investigation influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41A
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 323, 341, 354B, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 18, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- Section 41A CrPC
- Section 18 SC/ST Act
- cooperation with investigation
- scheduled caste atrocities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4078 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Uttam Kumar Son of Prem Yadav Resident of Village - Chature Khap, P.S. -
Amas, District- Gaya
2. Gautam Kumar Son of Prem Yadav Resident of Village - Chature Khap, P.S.
- Amas, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manorma Devi Wife of Vikash Paswan Resident of Village - Chature Khap,
Ramuachak, P.S. - Amas, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sadanand
Paswan, learned Special P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14A(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 05.08.2024,
passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in
connection with Amas P.S. Case No.110 of 2024, registered under
Sections 323, 341, 379, 354B, 504, 506, 147 and 149 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4078 of 2024(4) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The learned Special P.P., at the outset, submits after
perusing the case diary that appellants, during the course of
investigation, were given notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.
It is next submitted that thereafter charge sheet came to be
submitted based on which cognizance came to be taken.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants does not dispute the said submission of the learned
Special P.P. but then submits that appellants co-operated in the
investigation and the police never felt the need of arresting them
but then charge sheet came to be submitted based on which
cognizance came to be taken. It is thus, submitted that when
police, during the course of investigation, never felt the need of
arresting the appellants, whether it would be prudent for the Court
to send the appellants to jail based on an order of cognizance.
5. The learned Special P.P. and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the appeal but then
are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that police, during the course
of investigation, never felt the need of arresting the appellants and
appellants co-operated in the investigation but then learned Special
P.P. submits that cognizance signifies a prima facie offence and
thus rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would apply.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4078 of 2024(4) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the appellants but then since cognizance has been taken, as such,
the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to
surrender before the learned Trial Court on 19.01.2026 and the
learned Trial Court shall, on the same day, dispose of the case
keeping in mind the fact that appellants were given benefit of
Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and the police, during the course of
investigation, never felt the need of arresting the appellants and the
appellants co-operated in the investigation.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…