Patna High Court
Ram Babu Roy @ Ram Babu RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court allowed anticipatory bail to the appellants, setting aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
The appellants, Ram Babu Roy and Lal Babu Rai, were charged under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant at a marriage ceremony. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. On appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellants argued that the FIR specifically implicated only Ravi and Raja in the assault, that the allegations against them were vague, and that they have clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the claim that the accusations against the appellants were not specific. The Patna High Court held that the appellants could be released on anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions, set aside the trial court’s order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 B.N.S.S. in a case under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the FIR’s allegations against the appellants are sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the specific participation of the appellants in the alleged assault can be established.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments (or relevant) Special Statutes — s. 3(5), 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- assault
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4151 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Ram Babu Roy @ Ram Babu Rai S/o Vasadev Roy @ Late Vasu Dev Rai
Resident of Village - Madhuaha Mal, Post - Tetariya, P.S - Rajepur, District -
East Champaran
2. Lal Babu Rai @ Lal Babu Ray S/o Vasadev Roy @ Late Vasu Dev Rai
Resident of - Ward No. 4, Madhuaha Mal, Post - Tetariya, P.S - Rajepur,
District - East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary S/o Yogilal Chaudhary R/o Village - Tajpur Saraiya,
P.O - Tetaria, P.S - Rajepur, District - East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Subham Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 23-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant.
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 10.07.2025 in
A.B.P. No. 2511 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, East
Champaran at Motihari in connection with Motihari SC/ST P.S. Case
No. 44 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4151 of 2025(5) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the defects, as pointed out by the office, stand removed.
It is further submitted that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 09.05.2025, he had gone
to attend the marriage ceremony at the house of Raghunath Rai
where Ravi and Raja came and demanded to play obscene songs by
the orchestra which was objected by Raghunath Rai and the
informant on which they abused him by taking caste name but the
issue was pacified. Further, on 10.05.2025, at 04:45 a.m., when the
informant was going to his home from the marriage ceremony when
he was intercepted by Ravi and Raja and Rambabu along with
Lalbabu also came and Ravi assaulted the informant by lathi causing
injury on thigh and knees and Raja assaulted him by lathi causing
injury on his another thigh while the accused persons abused him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have 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 specific allegation of
assault is against Ravi and Raja and as far as the appellants are
concerned, the allegation of abuse against them is general and
omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that even the FIR does not
even remotely suggest that the occurrence was witnessed by any
independent witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4151 of 2025(5) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants but then are not in a
position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants that specific allegation of assault is against
Ravi and Raja.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants,
above-named, in the event of their 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) each 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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this
appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.