Patna High Court
Sugan Kumar @ Sugan KaharversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal was disposed of, with the court directing surrender and conditional anticipatory bail depending on whether cognizance had been taken.
Summary
The appellant, Sugan Kumar, was charged under several IPC sections, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault and firing incidents. He appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail. The appellant argued that notice was validly served via a jointness application and that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, also contending that cognizance of the case had not been taken despite a charge sheet being filed. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal but could not refute the claim that cognizance was absent. The High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court on 6 April 2026 and ordered that if cognizance was indeed not taken by 24 March 2026, the appellant should be released on anticipatory bail; otherwise the trial court may pass an appropriate order. The appeal was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act should be set aside.
- Whether notice served through a jointness application is valid.
- Whether cognizance of the offence had been taken by the trial court.
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- notice service
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.433 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-391 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Sugan Kumar @ Sugan Kahar S/o Dinesh Prasad @ Dinesh Tailer R/o Vill -
Bhadejee, P.S. - Muffasil, Dist. - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.I for the State. No one
appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.
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 15.12.2023 in A.B.P. No. 426/2023, arising out of
Muffasil P.S. Case No.391/2023 passed by the learned Exclusive
Special Judge, SC/ST Special Court, Gaya registered under
Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.433 of 2024(6) dt.24-03-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
notice was received by nephew of the respondent no.2 and a
jointness application in that regard has been filed. Since
jointness application has been filed, as such, the notice is
deemed to be validly served. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that informant despite receiving notice chooses not to
appear and contest. It is next submitted that appellant has
antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that his sister
was going for doing labour work, when some girls coming on
cycle dashed his sister on which his sister said something to the
girl, on which appellant who was coming said why is she
accusing him and started abusing and assaulting his sister,
further the sister along with others went to the house of
appellant and disclosed about the occurrence when appellant
started firing, hence his sister out of fear fled, further at 8 P.M.
appellant along with four named accused persons came and
started firing and assaulted causing injury on Chotu and Malti
Devi.
4. Learned counsel submits that 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 in the nature of allegation prima
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.433 of 2024(6) dt.24-03-2026
3/4
facie no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out as the
informant does not allege that appellant abused his sister by
taking her caste name and allegation of firing is ornamental. It is
also submitted that allegations are in two part and in the later
part it is alleged that appellant along with other accused came
and started firing and even assaulted Chotu and Malti but then
allegation of firing has been alleged only to give seriousness to
the case when no one was injured in the firing nor FIR has been
instituted under the Arms Act nor any injury report is on record.
It is further submitted that this perhaps explains why the
informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and
contest. It is next submitted that police in mechanical manner
investigated the case and submitted charge sheet on 30.09.2024
vide Charge sheet No.918/2024 but then cognizance till date has
not been taken.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that despite
submission of charge sheet in the year 2024, the cognizance till
date has not been taken, after perusing the case diary.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
appellant is directed to surrender before the learned trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.433 of 2024(6) dt.24-03-2026
4/4
on 06.04.2026 and in the event if it is found that cognizance till
24.03.2026 was not taken, the appellant shall be immediately
released on anticipatory bail but if it is found that cognizance
was taken prior to 24.03.2026, in that event, the learned trial
court shall be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…