Patna High Court
Sajjan Thakur @ Sajan ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellants, Sajjan Thakur and Subodh Rai, were charged under several provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly using caste slurs and assaulting an informant who had approached them regarding a Nal‑Jal scheme. The FIR was lodged 22 days after the alleged incident, and the Additional District & Sessions Judge had refused anticipatory bail. The appellants contended that the delay was unreasonable, the case was motivated by political rivalry, and an earlier case filed by them pre‑dated the present complaint. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Patna High Court, noting the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the possibility of political vendetta, set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the court directed that the appellants be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties as specified.
Issues considered
- Whether the 22‑day delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether allegations under sections 115(2), 126, 303(2), 79, 3(5), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act justify refusal of anticipatory bail.
- Whether political rivalry and a prior case filed by the appellants affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 115(2), 126, 303(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(5), 79
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- political rivalry
- caste harassment
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4439 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Sajjan Thakur @ Sajan Thakur S/o Vilash Thakur @ Vilas Thakur R/o
village - Panchayat Baghari @ Baghari, ward no. 4, Manorathi Tola, P.S. -
Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi
2. Subodh Rai @ Subodha Ray @ Subodh Kumar Ray S/o Deeplal Rai @
Satya Narayan Ray R/o village - Panchayat Baghari @ Baghari, ward no. 4,
Manorathi Tola, P.S. - Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Shivchandra Ram S/o Uchit Ram R/o village - Panchayat Baghari @
Baghari, P.S. - Runnisaidpur, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special PP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 11-09-2025 in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S.
Case No. 305 of 2025 for an offence u/s 115(2), 126, 303(2), 79,
3(5) BNS and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act whereby and
whereunder, anticipatory bail of the appellants/petitioners was
refused by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ist-
cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in A.B.P. No.
57 of 2025.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4439 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
3. Allegedly, the informant went to the house of
appellant No. 1 (husband of the Mukhiya) for demanding Nal
Jal scheme, where the appellant No. 1 is said to have uttered the
informant calling his caste name whereas the appellant No. 2 is
said to have assaulted the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that there is no reason for delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR.
The appellants’ side has also lodged a case which is earlier to
the present case and being infuriated by the case lodged by the
appellants’ side, the present case has been lodged due to
political rivalry. The appellant No. 1 is husband of Mukhiya and
the informant is is the former ward member.
5. On the otherhand, learned counsel appearing for the
informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. There is no explanation of delay of 22 days in
lodging the FIR.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 11-09-2025 passed in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S.
Case No. 305 of 2025 is set aside.
8. Accordingly, let the appellants, above named, in the
event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4439 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection with
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 305 of 2025.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…