Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, subject to a bond and sureties, finding the notice valid and the bail application justified.
Summary
The appellant, Ranjeet Kumar, appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the Special Judge's order rejecting his bail application in a case involving multiple offences including assault, robbery and offences under the SC/ST Act. The appellant claimed a clean antecedent and alleged that the FIR contained vague, omnibus allegations and that the alleged incident occurred inside the complainant's house, not in public view, rendering the notice ineffective. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the offences and the need to enforce the SC/ST Act. The court examined the validity of the notice served to the informant and found it to have been properly served. Considering the appellant's willingness to surrender, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties of equal amount, to be complied with within thirty days of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the notice served to the informant was valid and sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute offences under the SC/ST Act warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 14(A)(2), 303(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 324(4), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- bail rejection
- notice validity
- criminal procedure
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4350 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Sah S/O Ashok Sah @ Ashok Gupta
Resident of Mohalla- Takiya P.S. Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mala Devi W/O Paramhansh Paswan R/O Vill.- Karbandi, P.S.- Natwar,
Dist.- Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shashi Kant
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, leanred Spl.
P.P., Mr.Binay Krishna, appearing for the State. .
2. This appeal is an Appeal under Section 14(A)(2)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide
order dated 23.08.2025, passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST
(POA) 1989 Act, Sasaram, Rohtas, in connection with Sasaram
Town P.S. Case No.310 of 2025, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 74, 324(4),
329(4), 352, 351(2) 3(5) BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)
(w) SC/ST (POA) 1989 Act Sasaram, Rohtas.
3. The learned Spl. P.P. submits that in compliance
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4350 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
of the order dated 11.11.2025, the Superintendent of Police was
informed about the pendency of the instant Appeal and was
requested to inform the informant through the concerned police
station about pendnecy of the instant Appeal.
4. In view of the submission made by learned A.P.P,
the notice is due to have been validly served.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and informant alleges that appellant of 24.04.2025
came to her house at 5 P.M. and abused and assaulted her and
snatched her Mangalsutra, Mobile and Bluetooth. The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that
the appellant has been falsely implicated by the informant, it is
next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R., it would manifest that the allegation of abuse and
assault is general and omnibus in nature, it is further submitted
that the F.I.R. does not even remotely suggest the reason for the
occurrence, it is next submitted that even presuming what has
been alleged to be true without admitting then entire occurrence
took place at the house of the informant and thus was not in
public view, it is also submitted that this perhaps explain why
informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear in the
Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4350 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
6. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail.
7. Considering the submission, let the appellant,
above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending in connection with
Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.310 of 2025.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…