Patna High Court
Vinod SawversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants Vinod, Subodh and Pramod were charged under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and her husband after a dispute over a public pathway. The lower court had denied their prayer for anticipatory bail, holding that the alleged acts constituted an atrocity under the SC/ST Act. The appellants contended that the dispute was purely a land‑pathway issue, not motivated by caste animus, and that they were falsely implicated. The High Court examined whether the facts indicated a caste‑based atrocity or a civil land dispute and considered the applicability of Section 133 of the CrPC for factual inquiry. Finding that the injuries were simple and the root cause was a property dispute, the Court set aside the lower court's order and granted anticipatory bail. The judgment directed the appellants to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties within four weeks of arrest or surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged assault and theft constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged atrocities under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the dispute is motivated by caste animus or is a civil land/pathway dispute, affecting the applicability of the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 133
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351, 352, 76
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste atrocity
- land dispute
- public pathway
- Section 133 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- assault
- theft
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4445 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Vinod Saw S/o Late Kaleshwar Saw R/o Village - Nimmi, P.S - Shekhopur
Sarai, District -Sheikhpura
2. Subodh Saw @ Subodh Kumar S/o Vinod Saw R/o Village - Nimmi, P.S -
Shekhopur Sarai, District -Sheikhpura
3. Pramod Saw @ Pramod Kumar S/o Vinod Saw R/o Village - Nimmi, P.S -
Shekhopur Sarai, District -Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Munni Devi W/o Manoj Paswan R/o Village - Nimmi, P.S - Shekhopur
Sarai, District -Sheikhpura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
appellants under Section 14-A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for setting aside the order dated
10.10.2025, passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sheikhpura,
in connection with (Sheikhpura) SC/ST P.S.Case No. 26 of
2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 76, 303(2), 352, 351 and 3(5) of the BNS and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC ST Act, whereby the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4445 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. According to the FIR, the appellants encroached
the public path, and at the instance of the informant, the Circle
Officer verified the matter and prohibited the accused persons
from construction. Being aggrieved, the accused persons,
including the appellants abused the informant an assaulted her
and her husband.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been
implicated. The root cause of the dispute is not the malicious
feeling of caste, rather it is a dispute regarding a pathway.
According to the submission of the learned counsel for
appellants, the appellants were constructing their house on their
own land and it was not a public path.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting
that the accused persons abused the informant and her husband
in full public view and also assaulted them and snatched the
gold locket and Rs.15,000/-.
6. The root cause of the occurrence appears to be the
land dispute (a dispute relating to pathway). The appellants
make claim over the land, whereas the informant claims the land
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4445 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
as a public path. It is a subject-matter of inquiry under Section
133 of the CrPC. It appears that the rood cause of the
occurrence is not the malicious feeling of caste, rather it is a
land dispute. The injuries are simple in nature.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, the appeal
is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.10.2025, passed by
the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sheikhpura, in connection with
(Sheikhpura) SC/ST P.S.Case No. 26 of 2025 is set aside.
8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender
within four weeks from today, the appellants, above-named shall
be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sheikhpura,
in connection with (Sheikhpura) SC/ST P.S.Case No. 26 of
2025.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.