Patna High Court
Manju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside and the appellants were granted bail.
Summary
The appellants, Manju Devi and Simran Kumari, were charged under multiple sections of the B.N.S. and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault and caste‑based abuse. Their application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Purnea. They appealed, contending that the FIR was a retaliatory measure arising from a prior dispute, that the alleged incident occurred inside the informant’s house and not in public view, and that the charges against them were vague and omnibus. The High Court condoned a 59‑day delay in filing the appeal and examined the submissions of both parties. Finding that the allegations were not specifically made against the appellants and that the incident was not a public offence, the Court set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal, directing bail on the condition of a Rs 5,000 bond per appellant. The bail was granted subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act is legally sustainable
- Whether the FIR constitutes a false or retaliatory complaint
- Whether the allegations against the appellants are sufficiently specific to deny anticipatory bail
- Whether the limitation period for filing the appeal can be condoned
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 303(2), 308(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- false FIR
- omnibus allegation
- bail grant
- limitation condonation
- public view
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4575 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Manju Devi Wife of Alokit Jha Resident of Village - Shivshaki Nagar, P.S.-
Maranga, District - Purnea.
2. Simran Kumari @ Puja Kumari Daughter of Alokit Jha Resident of Village -
Shivshaki Nagar, P.S.- Maranga, District - Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manindara Kaushal Son of Late Gulai Ram Resident of Village - Shivshakti
Nagar, P.S.- Maranga, District - Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Md Musowir
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
Mr.Rajeev Ranjan
Mr.Avnish Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-07-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. In view of the grounds taken in the limitation
application, the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is
condoned, as such, I.A. No.01 of 2025 is allowed.
3. The appellants have challenged the order dated
02.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Purnea in connection with Maranga P. S. Case No.31 of
2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 117(2), 115(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4575 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
308(2), 318(4), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the
B.N.S. and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
& Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been
rejected.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have antecedent of one case
and are women and the informant alleges that on 02.02.2025 at
8.00 P.M., the police came and asked about the address of
Manju Devi (appellant no.1) and thereafter went away. Further,
03.02.2025, on the said issue, nine accused persons including
the appellants along with 5-6 unknown accused came and
started abusing by taking caste and said why he disclosed their
address. On objection, Aryan pointed pistol and made him sign
on stamp paper, blank paper and printed paper, thereafter Manju
gave orders to kill and Vinay assaulted him by rod causing
injury on head, thereafter Alokit Jha assaulted his son Vivek by
dabiya causing injury on nose. Further, Puja, Aman, Chandan
and Nishu assaulted his wife by lathi and danda and Vinay put
towel around her neck and dragged her while Chandan snatched
her chain and tore her clothes while Puja and Nishu snatched his
wife’s earring and anklet and Alokit snatched mobile of his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4575 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
sister in-law who was video-graphing the occurrence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case on
account of previous dispute. It is further submitted that from
side of the appellants, Maranga P. S. Case No. 30 of 2025 has
been instituted against the informant and others, as such, the
instant FIR is a counter-blast. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegations alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that the occurrence took place at the house of the informant,
hence was not in public view. It is also submitted that as far as
appellant no.1 is concerned, the allegation against her is general
and omnibus in nature, though informant alleges that on her
orders Vinay assaulted. It is further submitted that allegation of
assault is alleged agaisnt the named accused persons as detailed
in the FIR. It is further submitted that as far as appellants no.2 is
concerned, the allegation against her is general and omnibus in
nature.
6. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal, but then, are not in a position to rebut the submission of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
the occurrence did not take place in public view and appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4575 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
have not been alleged to have assaulted and allegation of abuse
is general and omnibus in nature.
7. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 02.06.2025 is set-aside.
8. The appeal stands allowed.
9. The appellants, above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Purnea in connection with Maranga P. S. Case No.31 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.