Patna High Court
Rajendra MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The order refusing anticipatory bail was set aside and the appellants were granted anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellants, four men from Sisai village, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault, robbery and vandalism against Neha Devi and her husband. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Exclusive Special Judge on 23‑12‑2025. The appellants contended that they had clean antecedents, that the allegations were vague and that the incident could not have occurred as described on two consecutive days. The State opposed the bail, relying on the FIR and the seriousness of the offences. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties, invoking its inherent powers under CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act was justified.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the CrPC to grant anticipatory bail in a SC/ST Act case.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- assault
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.409 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Saran
======================================================
1. Rajendra Mahto S/o Ramashray Mahto R/o vill - Sisai, P.S.- Sahajitpur,
Distt.- Saran at Chapra
2. Subham Kumar S/o Banshi Mahto R/o vill - Sisai, P.S.- Sahajitpur, Distt.-
Saran at Chapra
3. Shiv Charan Mahto S/o Narayan Mahto R/o vill - Sisai, P.S.- Sahajitpur,
Distt.- Saran at Chapra
4. Yogendra Mahto S/o Late Mishri Mahto R/o vill - Sisai, P.S.- Sahajitpur,
Distt.- Saran at Chapra
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Neha Devi W/o Tuntun Ram R/o vill - Sisai, P.S.- Sahajitpur, Distt.- Saran at
Chapra
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna.
2. No one appears on behalf of the informant.
3. 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 23.12.2025 in A.B.P. No. 4694 of 2025 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.409 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/4
Chapra, Saran in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 34 of
2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 109, 324(2), 351(2), 352(2) and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023 as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 23.09.2025 at 02:00 PM while she along with her
husband were coming home when they were intercepted by
Rajendra and Shiv Charan who snatched the key of the
motorcycle and accused her husband of getting theft committed
in their shop and asked him to get the stolen articles returned or
consequences would follow, but they came home, further on
24.09.2025 at 09:30 PM, Rajendra, Yogendra, Shiv Charan and
Shubham came to her house and Rajendra assaulted her husband
by rod causing injury on forehead, while all accused assaulted
her and Shubham acted inappropriately and the accused persons
vandalized her house.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand
to reason that if the appellants had to assault or abuse the
informant and her husband, in that event they could have done
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.409 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
3/4
the same on 23.09.2025 itself when it is alleged that accused
persons intercepted her and her husband, as such, there was no
occasion for the appellants again to come to the house of the
informant the next day i.e. on 24.09.2025 and to commit the
occurrence. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that a dispute
had arisen in between the side of the appellants and informant
on the issue that informant’s husband had aided in theft of
articles from the shop of the appellants. It is also submitted that
allegation against the appellants are general and omnibus in
nature and the entire occurrence took place inside the house of
the informant, as such, was not in public view, but then it is
fairly submitted that appellant no. 1, Rajendra, is alleged to have
assaulted her husband by rod causing injury on forehead, but
then the order impugned does not record the nature of injury.
6. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 23.12.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 4694 of 2025, is hereby set aside and the appellants
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.409 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
4/4
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 SC/ST P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.