Patna High Court
Ravi PrakashversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where cognizance of the offence has already been taken, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellants, nine individuals, appealed against the order of the Exclusive Special Court that denied them anticipatory bail in a case registered under multiple IPC sections and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR alleged that the accused had abused a college principal on caste grounds while disputing the distribution of scholarship funds, and the informant feared for his life. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that the allegations were concoced, and that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out. The State argued that cognizance had already been taken by the trial court and that the anticipatory bail application was therefore not maintainable. The High Court, after reviewing the FIR and noting that cognizance and a chargesheet were already in place, held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal, directing the appellants to surrender within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the trial court
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 341, 353, 427, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(x)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4574 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Saran
======================================================
1. Ravi Prakash son of Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Ray Resident of Village-
Marar, P.S-Parsa, Dist-Saran
2. Navin Prakash Son of Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra ray Resident of Village-
Marar, P.S-Parsa, Dist-Saran
3. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Rai son of shiv Nath Rai Resident of
Village- Anyay, P.S-Parsa, Dist-Saran
4. Shailendra Kumar son of Dharam Rai Resident of Village- Saraysaho, PS-
Dariapur, dist- Saran
5. Chandan Tiwari son of Birendra Tiwari Resident of Village- Gorigawan, P.S-
Parsa, Dist-Saran
6. Guddu Kumar son of Bharat Prasad Rai Resident of Village- Saraysaho, Ps-
Dariapur, Dist-Saran
7. Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Kumar son of Chandrika Rai Resident of Village-
Digha, P.S-Parsa, Dist-Saran
8. Rakesh Kumar Rai son of subash Rai Resident of Village-Bhalwehiya, P.S-
Parsa, Dist-Saran
9. Munna chaubey Son of Dev Barat Chaubey Resident of Village- Mirjapur,
P.S-Parsa, Dist-Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dr. Rama Nand Ram son of Late Bachcha ram Resident of Village- Bajrang
Nagar, Kashi bazar, chhapra, District- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Rakesh Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P
======================================================
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 against the
order dated 23.8.2025 passed in A.B.P no.3192 of 2025 by the
learned Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Chapra at Saran
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4574 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
and for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with SC/ST
Saran P.S Case no.8 of 2014 registered under sections 147, 341,
323, 353, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that he is posted on the post of Principal in the college. On the
date and time of occurrence, the nine named accused persons
who are the appellants herein came and started to abuse him
stating that he was distributing the scholarship as per his liking.
The informant was abused in the name of his caste. The
informant further states that he apprehends that he may be killed
any time. As such the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. From
perusal of the contents of the FIR itself it would be evident that
it was as a result of the improper manner of distribution of the
scholarship grant money by the informant who happens to be
the Principal that some dispute arose which has been blown out
of proportion by the informant. No such occurrence as alleged
in the FIR has taken place. The allegations levelled in the FIR
are false and concocted. No offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act
is made out against the appellants. No independent witness nor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4574 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
the members of the staff etc have supported prosecution case.
The appellants undertake to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The appeal is opposed by learned Spl.P.P for the
State. Referring to the order of the learned trial Court rejecting
the application for bail of the appellants, it is submitted that
besides submission of the chargesheet, cognizance has also been
taken and as such the instant appeal for grant of anticipatory bail
is not maintainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the allegations in the FIR, for the reasons of
cognizance having been taken in the learned trial Court as also
in an FIR registered in February, 2014, the appellants having
moved for anticipatory bail in the year 2025, the Court is not
inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.
7. The appeal is rejected.
8. The appellants are directed to surrender in the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…