Patna High Court
SUNIL RAIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal for anticipatory bail is not maintainable because cognizance of the offences has already been taken, in accordance with Bachu Das v. State of Bihar.
Summary
The appellants Sunil Rai, Kamlesh Rai and Anil Rai appealed against a Special Judge's order rejecting their anticipatory bail applications in a case registered under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 34 and SC/ST Act section 3(i)(x). The High Court examined whether the appeal was maintainable given that cognizance of the offences had already been taken. It noted that the trial was already underway, having been taken on 14 July 2021. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar (2014) 3 SCC 471, the Court held that an appeal for anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable after cognizance of the offence has been taken
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar applies to the present case
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(i)(x)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- maintainability
- SC/ST Act
- IPC
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4206 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2013 Thana- SC/ST District- Saran
======================================================
1. SUNIL RAI Son of Hardeo Rai Resident of Village- Suraudha, P.S-
Baniyapur, District- Saran.
2. Kamlesh Rai Son of Biran Rai Resident of Village-Suraudha, P.S-Baniyapur,
District-Saran.
3. Anil Rai Son of Bijali Rai Resident of Village-Suraudha, P.S-Baniyapur,
District-Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lilawati Devi Santosh Manjhi R/o Village- Suraudha, P.S.- Baniyapur, Dist.-
Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
12 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special P.P. for of the State.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
23.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran
in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act,
whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellants has been
rejected.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 18.11.2025, a report was
called for from the concerned court regarding stage of the trial,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4206 of 2019(12) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
which has been received and kept on record. From perusal
whereof, it appears that on 14.07.2021, cognizance has already
been taken under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 of the I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act against appellant nos. 1 & 3.
Accordingly, the appeal, filed for grant of anticipatory bail to
appellants, is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bachu Das Vs State of
Bihar and others, reported in (2014) 3 S.C.C. 471.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay
U T
Checking your session…