Patna High Court
Sandeep Choudhary @ Sandeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting bail and granted anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations against the appellant were vague and insufficient to deny bail.
Summary
The appellant, Sandeep Choudhary, was charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged caste‑based abuse and for directing an assault on the family of the informant, which allegedly led to the death of the informant's husband. The trial court rejected his bail application, but on appeal the High Court examined the FIR and the post‑mortem report, noting that the death was due to natural causes and that there was no specific allegation of an overt act by the appellant, only a general allegation of abuse. The court also observed that the appellant had no prior criminal record and that the evidence did not show his participation in the assault. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court’s order, granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Sections 438 of the CrPC and 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and allowed the appeal. The order also clarified that any observations made therein would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the allegations against the appellant under the SC/ST (POA) Act to justify denial of bail?
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act in view of the evidence.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged role in directing the assault warrants custodial detention.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(gha), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- caste based violence
- Section 14(A)(2)
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4246 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2025 Thana- KAJRAILI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Sandeep Choudhary @ Sandeep Kumar, Son of Ganesh Choudhary, R/o
Village- Daradhi Bahadurpur, PS-Kajraili, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Girija Devi, Wife of Late Naveen Chandra Niwas @ Nakul Das, R/o
Village- Daradhi Bahadurpur, PS-Kajraili, Distt.-Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 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 17.09.2025 passed by the
learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhagalpur in A.B.P. No. 2110 of 2025 in
connection with Kajraili P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 registered for
the offence(s) under Section(s) 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4246 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/5
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section(s) 3(1)(gha) and 3(1)
(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that all
the F.I.R. named accused persons including the appellant have
abused the informant/respondent No. 2 and others by their caste
name and have also assaulted her son. It has further been
alleged that on account of such assault, the husband of the
informant/respondent No. 2 received injury and he later died.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the name of the appellant has been entered as the last name,
stating him to be the person who had come to the place of
occurrence and had abused in general and, thereafter, directed to
assault the informant/respondent No. 2. It has been submitted
that there is no specific allegation against the appellant with
regard to any overt act and even the allegation of abuse is of
general nature. It has further been submitted that no case under
the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out against the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn
the attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report,
which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/3 and
from the perusal of the same, it would be evident that the cause
of death is stated to be natural due to diseases of heart and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4246 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/5
lungs. It has next been submitted that from the perusal of the
external injury, it would be evident that only one bruise of size
1” x 0.5” was present over the forehead. It has, thus, been
submitted that the allegations levelled against the appellant are
of general and omnibus nature and altogether eighteen persons
have falsely been roped in this case, just to implicate all.
However, the appellant, it has been argued, has no concern
whatsoever with the same. It has lastly been submitted that the
appellant has no criminal antecedents.
6. 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
petition of the appellant and have submitted that the appellant
was one among the several persons, who had attacked the
family of the informant/respondent No. 2 including her husband
and son. It has been submitted that there is an allegation of
abuse against the appellant along with others and he had also
directed for assaulting the family of the informant/respondent
No. 2. It has lastly been submitted that a similarly situated co-
accused, namely, Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh @
Manoj Prasad Singh, had approached this Court for grant of bail
vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3887 of 2025 and his bail application
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4246 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/5
was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
12.11.2025.
7. Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into account the fact that from
the mere perusal of the F.I.R., it would be evident that the
appellant was not involved in the assault, barring the allegation
of directing along with two other persons to assault and there is
a general and omnibus allegation of abuse against him, 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 Kajraili P.S. Case
No. 45 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain physically present
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4246 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
5/5
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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order, referred to
above, is set aside.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. 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…