Patna High Court
MITHILESH KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court's refusal and allowed anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellants, including Mithilesh Kumar, appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged abduction, forced inter‑caste marriage, and caste‑based assault under several IPC and SC/ST provisions. The victim, Indu Devi, testified that the marriage was consensual and that she was living peacefully with the accused, contradicting the prosecution's narrative of coercion and caste oppression. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides and the victim, held that the trial court's refusal was unwarranted and granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond and two sureties, with a six‑week surrender condition. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of refusing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged SC/ST atrocities?
- Whether the victim's testimony indicating a consensual inter‑caste marriage negates the necessity for denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 342, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- forced marriage
- IPC offences
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4368 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-527 Year-2023 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. MITHILESH KUMAR S/O- HARENDRA MAHATO Resident of Village-
Sareya Narendra Police Station- Madhopur District-Gopalganj
2. Ranju Devi W/o- Harendra Mahato Resident of Village- Sareya Narendra
Police Station- Madhopur District-Gopalganj
3. Rabri Devi @ Ragni Devi D/o- Late Chandradeo Mahato Resident of
Village- Sareya Narendra Police Station- Madhopur District-Gopalganj
4. Rabindra Mahato Son of Late Chandradeo Mahato Resident of Village-
Sareya Narendra Police Station- Madhopur District-Gopalganj
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Indu Devi Wife of Late Dharmnath Ram Resident of Village- Sareya
Narendra Police Station- Madhopur District-Gopalganj
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 13-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Advocate
Mr. Aman Ashish who files Vakalatnama on behalf of the
victim.
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 08.07.2024 in A.B.P. No. 1565 of 2024 passed by
the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4368 of 2024(5) dt.13-03-2026
2/4
Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Gopalganj in connection with
Barauli P.S. Case No. 527 of 2023 registered under Sections
341, 342, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellant no. 1 has antecedent of one case and appellants no. 2,
3, 4 are persons with clean antecedent and appellant no. 2 and 3
are women and the informant alleges that Mithilesh abducted
her daughter aged about 18 years for the purposes of marrying
her on 12.06.2023 for which Barauli P.S. Case No. 250 of 2023
was instituted. Further, her daughter was staying with Mithilesh.
It is next alleged that when accused persons came to know that
Barauli P.S. Case No. 250 of 2023 has ended thereafter they
started abusing her daughter by taking caste name and even
assaulted her on 17.12.2023 and locked her in a room,
accordingly, her daughter called the informant when Ranju Devi
snatched her mobile and all the accused assaulted her. Further,
the informant reached the place of occurrence when accused
persons even assaulted the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that by order dated 11.11.2024 notices were
issued on the opposite party no. 2 but then the opposite party no.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4368 of 2024(5) dt.13-03-2026
3/4
2 despite receiving the notice has chosen not to appear, as such,
the victim, who is staying with Mithilesh at her matrimonial
home, has appeared.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the victim submits that the victim is also present in the Court,
as such, the victim was called and the victim disclosed that her
marriage with Mithilesh is an inter-caste marriage and, as such,
was being opposed by her mother, hence, the instant case came
to be instituted. The victim further submits that she is leading a
peaceful conjugal life with Mithilesh at her matrimonial home.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and the victim, let the appellants, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4368 of 2024(5) dt.13-03-2026
4/4
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
9. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the victim submits that he has a copy of the Vakalatnama but
the same shall be filed in the Registry today itself.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…