Patna High Court
Sitaram MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out.
Summary
The appellant, Sitaram Mahto, was charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC sections for allegedly assaulting a child and using caste-based slurs. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, arguing that he has a clean record, the FIR was filed five days after the incident, and he cooperated with the investigation. The State opposed, contending that a prima facie case exists, the assault was serious, and the appellant was aware of the FIR and notice under Section 41A CrPC. The High Court examined whether the circumstances warranted the grant of anticipatory bail. Finding that the allegations amounted to a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, the Court declined to extend anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when a prima facie case is established.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the nature of the alleged caste‑based assault justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41A
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- prima facie case
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code offences
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.410 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sitaram Mahto S/O Anutha Mahto R/O Vill and P.O.- Sahbajpur, P.S.- Riga,
Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lalpari Devi W/O Paltan Ram R/O Vill and P.O.- Sahbajpur, P.S.- Riga,
Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pratik Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Binay Krishna.
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 9-1-2026 in A.B.P. No. 79 of 2025 passed by the
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sitamarhi in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 73 of 2017 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.410 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 20-8-2017 his son Kamlesh along with other
children were fishing at 12 noon, when appellant came and
started abusing the children, who fled, but his son was assaulted
by Hasua causing injury on head, further the informant after
admitting his son in the PHC came to the house of appellant to
confront him when appellant abused by taking caste name.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is 20-
8-2017 and the FIR came to be instituted on 25-8-2017, i.e.,
after a delay of 5 days. It is further submitted that appellant was
given notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and police never
felt the need of arresting the appellant and appellant also
cooperated in the investigation, but then charge-sheet came to
be submitted in the year 2017, based on which cognizance came
to be taken as such appellant apprehends arrest.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submits that there is a
direct allegation against the appellant of assaulting the son of
the informant by Hasua. It is next submitted that no doubt at
para-9, it has been pleaded that the injuries suffered by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.410 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
injured have been opined to be simple in nature, but then
appellant is alleged to have assaulted and appellant was aware
that an FIR has been instituted against him, since he was given
notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C and he cooperated in the
investigation, but after charge-sheet came to be submitted in the
Year 2017, the appellant slept. It is thus submitted that a person
who sleeps over his right is not entitled for relief from the
Court. It is also submitted that since charge-sheet has been
submitted and cognizance has been taken as such a prima facie
offence is made out.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
Spl.PP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…