Patna High Court
Ramesh Prasad SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail and set aside the order refusing it.
Summary
The appellants Ramesh Prasad Sinha, Punam Devi and Atul Kumar Sinha appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant, Jyoti Kumari, alleged caste‑based abuse, dowry‑related offences and other crimes arising from a domestic dispute with her partner Ritesh. The appellants contended that they have clean antecedents, that the FIR is vague and does not disclose essential particulars, and that the allegations against Atul Kumar Sinha amount only to a private telephone insult not constituting an offence. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions, set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the serious nature of the allegations.
- Whether the FIR discloses sufficient particulars to sustain charges under the IPC, SC/ST Act and Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants, particularly Atul Kumar Sinha.
- Whether the alleged telephone abuse constitutes an offence triable under the SC/ST Act or other statutes.
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge was legally justified.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 85
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- dowry prohibition
- caste based abuse
- criminal procedure
- Section 14-A
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4447 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ramesh Prasad Sinha S/O Late Narsingh Narayan Lal Resident of Near
Gauri Shankar Mandir, Gaighat, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna
2. Punam Devi W/O Ramesh Prasad Sinha Resident of Near Gauri Shankar
Mandir, Gaighat, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna
3. Atul Kumar Sinha @ Atul Kr. S/O Ramesh Prasad Sinha Resident of Near
Gauri Shankar Mandir, Gaighat, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jyoti Kumari D/O Naresh Paswan At Present R/O Musallampur Hat, P.S.-
Pirbahore, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumod Kumar Shrivastaw, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
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 30.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 3384 of 2025 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court
Patna Sadar in connection with Patna SC/ST P.S. Case No. 44 of
2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4447 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
351(3), 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she was married in the year 2014 but her marriage
broke thereafter she came in contact with Ritesh and married
him in a temple on 29.02.2021 in presence of his friends Sonu
and Neha thereafter Ritesh took her to his house but his parents
ousted her from the house on the ground that she belongs to low
caste thereafter Ritesh kept her in a rented house for five years
where she became pregnant twice but Ritesh got the pregnancy
aborted. Further, in 2025 Ritesh for two months did not come to
the rented premises and on inquiry, it transpired that he is
getting married at the behest of his parents, accordingly, she
came to the house of Ritesh on 02.06.2025, at 09:30 a.m., when
his parents abused her by taking caste name and assaulted and
ousted her from the house and brother of Ritesh, namely, Atul
Kumar Sinha @ Atul Kr. (appellant no. 3) also abused her on
phone.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4447 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
informant being the father, mother and brother of Ritesh. It is
further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that she was
earlier married in the year 2014 but then her marriage broke. It
is next submitted that the FIR does not even remotely suggest
whether the informant divorced her earlier husband or not. It is
also submitted that though in the FIR, it is alleged that Ritesh
stayed with her in a rented premises for five years but then
neither the name of the landlord is disclosed nor the address of
the house where she stayed on rent is recorded in the FIR.
Further the informant also does not disclose the month in which
Ritesh did not come to meet her. It is further submitted that
appellants have been implicated only with a view to coerce
Ritesh into submission. It is next submitted that even presuming
what has been alleged is true without admitting then the entire
occurrence took place at the house of Ritesh, thus, was not in
public view. It is also submitted that prima facie no offence is
made out against Atul Kumar Sinha @ Atul Kr. (appellant no. 3)
even if he is alleged to have abused the informant on phone,
since, the same also was not in public view.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4447 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. Considering the submissions aforesaid, 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 BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…