Patna High Court
Vinay Kumar Ray @ Binay Kumar Roy @ Vinay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The appeal is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants filed an appeal seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging that they were falsely implicated in an alleged assault and caste-based abuse of the informant's family. The prosecution alleged that the seven accused, armed, assaulted the informant and his family and abused them on caste grounds. The appellants contended that no such incident occurred, they have no criminal antecedent, and the dispute has been settled between the parties, with the informant expressing no desire to pursue the case. The State opposed the bail, but the court, noting the settlement, lack of prior record, and the appellants' willingness to cooperate, set aside the Special Judge’s earlier denial of bail. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties for each appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the settlement between the parties and the informant's lack of interest in prosecution preclude denial of bail.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR sufficiently justify refusal of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 191(2), 303(2), 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- caste based violence
- settlement
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4481 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Vinay Kumar Ray @ Binay Kumar Roy @ Vinay Kumar S/o Late Lal Babu
Ray @ Lal Babu Ray
2. Amit Kumar S/o Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Ray @ Binay Kumar Roy
3. Ashish Kumar @ Aashish Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar
4. Niraj Kumar S/o Chunnu Kumar @ Chunnu Mahto
5. Chunnu Mahato @ Chunnu Kumar S/o Late Shaukhi Mahto @ Saukhi
Mahato
6. Nandan Kumar S/o Late Tilak Mahato
7. Anita Devi W/o Late Lal Babu Ray @ Lal Babu Roy
All R/o Village - Saidpur, ward no. 11, P.S. - Chakmehsi, District -
Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pankaj Kumar S/o Ramesh Mahto R/o Village - Saidpur, ward no. 12, P.S. -
Chakmehsi, District - Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
Mr. Priyadarshi Harshvardhan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred praying for
grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants in connection with
Samastipur SC/ST P.S. Case no.106 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under sections 191(2), 126(2), 127(2),
115(2), 303(2) and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4481 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the seven named accused persons who are the appellants
herein came variously armed and assaulted the informant and
the other members of his family and also abused them in the
name of caste. They also misbehaved with the lady members.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. No such
occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken place. In any view of
the matter, neither there is specific allegation under the S.C./S.T.
Act against any of the appellants nor is the alleged occurrence
said to have taken place in public view. The appellants
undertake to cooperate in the investigation/trial. It is finally
submitted that the differences between the parties have been
settled and the informant who has appeared through his counsel
is not interested in pursuing the case.
5. The appeal is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the
State. Learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that
the submission made on behalf of the appellant is correct that
the matter has been settled between the parties.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4481 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
submissions made on behalf of the appellants as stated herein
above, the appellants not having any criminal antecedent and the
submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the
informant that the matter has been settled between the parties,
the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in ABP no.2567 of 2025 by
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
rejecting the application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected
and the appeal is allowed.
7. In the facts of the case, it is directed that the
appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks,
be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Samastipur
SC/ST P.S. Case no.106 of 2025 on each of them furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Samastipur.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…