Santosh Rai @ Santosh Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4565 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Santosh Rai @ Santosh Kumar Rai S/O Badri Rai R/O Village- Kathrai, P.S-
                 Charpokhari, Dist.- Bhojpur.

                                                                                ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    Dularo Devi W/o Veer Bahadur Choudhary R/O Village- Kathrai, P.S-
                 Charpokhari, Distt.- Bhojpur.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :        Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Mr.Binay Krishna, special P.P.
                 For Respondent No.2    :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-04-2026                 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

                   the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Stat and learned

                   counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

                               2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant

                   seeking grant of bail and setting aside the order dated

                   20.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-

                   cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection

                   with Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 146 of 2025, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352,

                   351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s),

                   and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

                   (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4565 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
                                             2/4




                       3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that when

          the husband of the informant went to a grocery shop in the

          village at about 8:30 P.M., co-accused Ashok Rai along with the

          present appellant arrived there and started scuffling with him. It

          is further alleged that the appellant assaulted the informant’s

          husband on the head with an iron rod, causing injury. It is also

          alleged that the accused persons abused the informant’s husband

          by taking the name of his caste.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

          appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is

          submitted that the appellant has clean antecedents. It is further

          contended that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and

          3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case,

          as the alleged occurrence did not take place in public view but

          inside a grocery shop at about 8:30 P.M. It is further submitted

          that no motive has been disclosed in the FIR. Learned counsel

          also submits that although an allegation of assault is made, the

          same is not consistent with the injury report (Annexure-3),

          which suggests that the injury is caused by a hard and blunt

          substance and only one injury has been found on the head,

          which does not fully corroborate the allegations. It is further

          submitted that both parties are residents of the same village and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4565 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
                                             3/4




          are known to each other, and the case is a result of village

          rivalry. The appellant undertakes to abide by all conditions as

          may be imposed by this Court.

                       5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on the other

          hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that

          there is a specific allegation of assault against the appellant in

          the FIR, and the injury sustained by the informant’s husband is

          supported by the injury report. It is further submitted that the

          place of occurrence, being a grocery shop, may be treated as a

          public place and, therefore, the provisions of the SC/ST Act are

          attracted.

                       6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also opposes the

          prayer for bail but fairly submits that there appears to be a lack

          of essential ingredients for attracting the provisions of the

          SC/ST Act.

                       7. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the

          materials available on record, this Court is of the considered

          view that although there appears to be a lack of essential

          ingredients for attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, there

          is a specific allegation of assault against the appellant, which is

          supported by the injury report.

                       8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegation
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4565 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
                                                         4/4




                      and the supporting medical evidence, this Court is not inclined

                      to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

                                   9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant in

                      connection with Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 146 of 2025,

                      pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-

                      Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhojpur at Ara, is hereby rejected.

                                   10. However, if the appellant surrenders before the

                      Trial Court within six weeks from today, the Trial Court is

                      directed to pass an order on his surrender-cum-bail application

                      on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the

                      appellant’s anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court.

                                   11. The present appeal stands dismissed.



                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-

U      T