Patna High Court
Md. RahmanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order denying anticipatory bail is set aside and the appellant is granted bail.
Summary
The appellant, Md. Rahman, was denied anticipatory bail in a case alleging kidnapping of a minor and offences under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He contended that the specific kidnapping allegation pertained only to co‑accused Md. Mujahir and that there was no caste‑based abuse, making the SC/ST Act charge inapplicable to him. The prosecution opposed his bail, while the appellant highlighted that a similarly situated co‑accused, Md. Hakeem Miya, had been granted anticipatory bail in a related proceeding. The High Court, considering the general nature of the accusations and the principle of parity, set aside the lower court’s order denying bail, but only with respect to the appellant. Consequently, the court ordered that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is liable to anticipatory bail under the charges of kidnapping and offences under the B.N.S. and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the allegations under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act are applicable to the appellant.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 96
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- SC/ST Act
- caste based offence
- bail
- criminal appeal
- parity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4568 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
Md. Rahman S/O Late Habib Miya R/O Village- Bhat Khora Musharnia Rahi,
Ward No. 5, P.S- Murliganj, Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Punam Devi W/O Late Lalan Rishidev R/O Village- Bhat Khora, Tola
Musharniya Rahi, P.S- Murliganj, Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 17.10.2025 passed in a case registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the B.N.S. and
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of this appellant has been rejected.
3. As per prosecution case, co-accused Md. Mujahir,
along with other accused persons, including this appellant,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4568 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
kidnapped the minor daughter of informant aged about 14 years
for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is
apparent that specific accusation of kidnapping minor daughter
of informant is against co-accused Md. Mujahir. So far as this
appellant is concerned, he has falsely been implicated in this
case merely because he happens to be friend of co-accused Md.
Mujahir. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no
allegation of abuse by caste name and as such, no case under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is made out against this appellant. It is lastly
submitted that co-accused Md. Hakeem Miya, having similar
and identical allegations, has already been granted the privilege
of anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
23.02.2026 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3814 of 2025.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State
and learned counsel appearing for the informant/Respondent
No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the appellant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4568 of 2025(3) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and claim based
on parity, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in connection
with A.B.P. No. 1273 of 2025 arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case
No. 162 of 2025 is hereby set aside with respect to this appellant
only.
7. Accordingly, let the appellant, named above, in the
event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1 st-cum-Special
Judge, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No.
162 of 2025.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…