Patna High Court
UJWAL KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Ujwal Kumar, was charged under Sections 25(1‑b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly threatening a neighbour with a country‑made pistol during a land‑irrigation dispute. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge on 31‑07‑2023. The appellant appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, contending that the FIR was false, the informant had not appeared despite notice, and that he had a clean antecedent. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, ordered that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and set aside the lower court’s order, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- The propriety of refusing anticipatory bail in a case under the SC/ST Act and the Arms Act.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged false implication and the non‑appearance of the informant affect the bail decision.
- The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act for seeking anticipatory bail.
- The conditions under which anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- false implication
- bail jurisdiction
- criminal appeal
- scheduled caste offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4092 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2023 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
UJWAL KUMAR S/O SRI SURESH SINGH @ SURESH SHARMA R/O
VILLAGE AND P.O- MAJHIAWA, P.S- KONCH, DISTT.- GAYA, BIHAR-
824118.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
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 31.07.2023 in A.B.P. No. 133 of 2023 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Spl. Court, Gaya in
connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 85 of 2023 registered
under Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act as well as
Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that despite valid service of notice, the
respondent no. 2 chooses not to appear and contest. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4092 of 2023(6) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
submitted that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and
the informant alleges that he was irrigating his field on
20.02.2023, at 11:00 a.m., when the appellant came and asked
why he has not irrigated his field on which the informant replied
that he will irrigate his land after irrigating his own land, hence,
the appellant abused by taking caste name and took out a
country made pistol and threatened him but the informant
snatched the pistol when the accused fled away as villagers
gathered and the pistol was handed over to the police.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that appellant came and abused him by taking
caste name and also took out a country made pistol and
threatened but then the said country made pistol was snatched
and the accused fled away. It is next submitted that from perusal
of the FIR, it would manifest that informant had given his
thumb impression and the allegation is written in Hindi which
amply demonstrates that informant is not the author of the
allegation and the FIR does not even disclose who was the
author of the allegation. It is also submitted that appellant is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4092 of 2023(6) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
student of BCA and on account of dispute relating to land, he
has been implicated at the behest of his agnates by the
informant. It is submitted that this perhaps explains why the
informant despite receiving the notice chooses not to appear and
contest.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, let the appellant,
above-named, in the event of his 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 bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…