Patna High Court
Raja Ram ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court set aside the lower court’s denial of bail and allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Raja Ram Chaudhary, was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly participating in a mob that assaulted the shop of informant Umesh Ray, refused payment, stole money and used caste-based abuse. The Special Judge had rejected his bail application, prompting an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The High Court observed that no specific overt act was alleged against the appellant and that the charge under the SC/ST Act was not substantiated. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, invoking Sections 438(2) of the CrPC and 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The appeal was allowed and the bail order was modified.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when no specific overt act is alleged against the accused under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Whether the rejection of bail by the Special Judge was legally erroneous.
- Applicability of Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act for appealing a bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- mob assault
- caste discrimination
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4241 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Raja Ram Chaudhary S/o- Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary, R/o Village -
Nagargama , PS - Dalsingsarai , District - Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Umesh Ray S/o- Ramlolin Ray, R/v- Ghat Nawada, PS- Dalsingsarai, Dist-
Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2 and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 [in short the SC/ST (POA) Act] against the rejection of
prayer for bail vide order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur in A.B.P.
No. 1426 of 2025 in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No.
164 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) under Section(s)
191(2), 191(3), 190, 126, 115(2), 109 and 303(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section(s) 3(1)(r)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4241 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The allegation against the appellant is that he
along with four other named accused and 10-15 unknown
persons came to the shop of the informant/respondent No. 2 and
they refused to pay for the goods they purchased and, thereafter,
they even took away the money kept in the locker and it is
alleged that co-accused/Shubham Chaudhary not only abused
the informant/respondent No. 2 with his caste name but had also
assaulted him.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and at
best, he can be said to be a member of the mob. It has been
submitted that no specific allegation of any overt act has been
alleged against the appellant. It has further been pointed out
that it is the co-accused against whom it is alleged that he had
refused from making payment and, thereafter, assaulted the
informant/respondent No. 2. It has lastly been submitted that
the appellant has two criminal antecedents, in which he is on
bail.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
State as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant/respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4241 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
petition of the appellant and have submitted that the appellant
was part of the mob and had approached the shop of the
informant/respondent No. 2 and had even participated in
abetting the crime.
6. Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into account that there is no
specific overt act against the appellant and that no case is made
out against him for the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, let
the appellant, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned Court
below within a period of four weeks from today, on his/her
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S.
Case No. 164 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors of the appellant shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4241 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
(ii) The appellant shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of
the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive
occasions, without reasonable cause, or in violation of
the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the appellant
will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case, at
any stage, it is found that he/she has concealed his/her
criminal antecedents, the Court concerned shall take
necessary steps for cancellation of his/her bail bonds.
However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(v) The appellant shall in no manner threaten or
try to contact or influence the informant/respondent
No. 2.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order, referred to
above, is set aside.
8. The appeal stands allowed.
9. It is made clear that the observation, if any,
made in this order, shall be of no bearing during trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…