Patna High Court
Aashish Tiger @ Ramashish Kumar @ Aashish Kumar @ Aashish Yadav @ Tiger @ Ashishish TigerversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was not granted and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Aashish Tiger, appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the refusal of bail for offences alleged under the Bihar Negotiable... Act, 2023 and the SC/ST Act, arising from a land‑dispute incident on 3 September 2024. The FIR alleged that the appellant and others threatened the complainant with a pistol, assaulted family members, and committed other violent acts. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the land dispute was civil in nature, and that he was already on bail in his other 18 cases. The State highlighted the appellant’s extensive criminal antecedents, including pending cases under the UAPA and CLA Acts, and warned of a risk of absconding if bail were granted. After considering the seriousness of the allegations, the appellant’s criminal history, and the potential for flight, the Court declined to grant bail and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant could renew his bail application after charge‑framing.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite his antecedent of 18 criminal cases.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR, arising from a land dispute, constitute a ground for denial of bail.
- Whether the risk of the appellant absconding, given pending cases under the UAPA and CLA Acts, justifies refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Law Amendment Act
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s), 3(va)
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- antecedent
- land dispute
- scheduled caste atrocities
- criminal procedure
- bail refusal
- UAPA
- CLA
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4125 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2024 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Aashish Tiger @ Ramashish Kumar @ Aashish Kumar @ Aashish Yadav @
Tiger @ Ashishish Tiger R/O Dwarika Yadav @ Dawarika Yadav @ Dwarika
Prasad @ Tippi Yadav R/O Vill.- Ahuri Maliyachak Mahuavan,P.S-
Amas,Dist.- Gayajee
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Pratima W/O Vinay Kumar Das @ Vijay Prasad R/O Vill.- Ahuri
Maliyachak Mahuavan,P.S- Amas,Dist.- Gayajee
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms. Usha Kumari No.1.
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 bail vide order dated
18.08.2025 in B.P. No. 2414/2025, passed by the learned
Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. Court, Gayajee in connection
with Amas P.S. Case No. 295 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 115, 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352,
191(2), 190, 74 and 324(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections
3(i), (r), 3, (i), (r), (s), 3(2), (va) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4125 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has antecedent of 18 cases and the informant alleges
that on 03.09.2024 at 09:00 AM, she received an information
that some accused are trying to grab her ancestral land,
accordingly, she reached the place of occurrence along with
family members, and saw seven accused persons including the
appellant constructing boundary wall on her land, on objection
accused abused them by taking caste name and said that the land
has been purchased by them, further appellant threatened Sanjay
with pistol, while Deepak and Mantu acted inappropriately with
her daughter and Sarfaraz teased her sister-in-law and snatched
her chain and set ablaze the grass cutting mill on the land.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted
that though there is an allegation that appellant threatened
Sanjay with pistol but then the case has not been instituted
under the Arms Act. It is also submitted that appellant is in
custody since 11.06.2025.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4125 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the appeal,
and submits that petitioner has antecedent of 18 cases. It is next
submitted that at times, FIR is instituted with exaggerated
allegation but then the same cannot become a ground for
granting bail. It is next submitted that no doubt appellant is in
custody but then if privilege of bail is granted to the appellant,
the appellant may abscond as appellant is accused in cases
relating to U.A.P.A. Act and C.L.A. Act also.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant submits that no doubt the appellant has
antecedent of 18 cases but then appellant is on bail in all the
cases.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
8. Accordingly the appeal of the appellant stands
rejected.
9. However, appellant would be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…