Patna High Court
Baby Khatoon @ BebeeversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail and set aside the lower court's order refusing it.
Summary
The appellants, Baby Khatoon and Badal Khan, appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Special Judge's refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged mob assault and grievous injuries to the informant. The prosecution alleged that the first appellant pulled the informant's wife’s hair and that the second appellant was part of the attacking mob, while the defence argued that the accusations were false, that the specific assault charge pertained to other persons, and that the appellants have clean antecedents. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences listed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act. The High Court, after considering the facts, conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS, and the lack of a specific overt act against the second appellant, directed that anticipatory bail be granted with a bond of Rs.10,000 each and several conditions. Consequently, the order rejecting bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the court noting that any observations in the bail order would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is justified in the present facts.
- Whether the appellants can be granted anticipatory bail despite allegations of participation in a mob assault causing grievous injuries.
- Whether conditions imposed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are appropriate for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 191(3), 303(2), 329(2), 352, 482, 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(ii)(va), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14(A)(2)
- Section 482
- mob assault
- grievous injury
- high court
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4372 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2025 Thana- ROHTAS District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Baby Khatoon @ Bebee W/O Tauquir Khan R/O Vill.- Sundarganj, P.S.-
Rohtas, Dist.- Rohtas
2. Badal Khan S/O Mustkim Khan R/O Vill.- Sundarganj, P.S.- Rohtas, Dist.-
Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Armod Chaudhary (Pasi), son of Late Nathuni Chaudhary, resident of
Village: Sundarganj, P.S.+District: Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, for the
informant and learned APP for the State.
2. This 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
20.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case
No. 150 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1), 329(2), 74, 303(2), 352
and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(i)(s) and 3(ii)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4372 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
appellants is that appellant no. 1 had pulled the wife of the
informant by catching her hair, while appellant no. 2 is said to be
the member of the mob.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have falsely been implicated and no such occurrence, as
alleged, has taken place. It is submitted that the specific allegation
of assault is against Ali Hussain and Tauqir Khan in which the
injuries were found to be grievous. It has further been submitted
that there is no specific allegation of overt act against appellant no.
2 namely Badal Khan. It has lastly been submitted that the
appellants have clean antecedents.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and have
submitted that the appellants were also part of the mob which had
attacked the informant and others and therefore, they should not be
released on anticipatory bail. It has lastly been submitted that the
informant has sustained grievous injuries.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
the appellants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within
a period of four weeks from today, on their furnishing bail bonds
in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4372 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection
with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS as well as subject to
the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the appellants and the other shall be a
local resident:
(ii) the appellants will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so
required by the learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two
consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the
bail, the bail bonds of the appellants will liable to
be cancelled by the Court concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage, it is found that the appellant has
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the
appellant. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of the same on in the name of
verification.
(v) The appellants shall in no manner
threaten or try to contact or influence the informant.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 is
set aside and the present appeal stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…