Patna High Court
Kumar Rahul @ Kanhaiya SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellants, two brothers, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023 for allegedly intimidating and obstructing a woman (the informant) from constructing a house on land she claimed to have purchased. The informant alleged that the brothers, after selling the land to her, refused to hand over possession, abused her with caste slurs, and demanded a payment of Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants contended that they had executed a valid sale deed, had no motive to disturb her possession, and were falsely implicated. They filed an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act seeking anticipatory bail, which had been denied by the Special Judge. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the factual allegations constitute offences punishable under the SC/ST Act and the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- land dispute
- criminal appeal
- Section 14-A
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4593 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-661 Year-2024 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Kumar Rahul @ Kanhaiya Singh Son of Ashok Kumar Resident of Village-
Sonpur Barbatta (Naya Tola), P.O-Sonpur, P.S-Sonpur, Dist-Saran
2. Kumar Rishabh @ Sonu Singh Son of Ashok Kumar Resident of Village-
Sonpur Barbatta (Naya Tola), P.O-Sonpur, P.S-Sonpur, Dist-Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sarita Kumari Wife of Mithilesh Kumar Resident of Village/Mohalla- Pahari
Chak, Ward No. 05, P.S.- Sonpur, Distt.- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
For the Informant : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 05.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 2954 of 2024 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Saran
in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 661 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4593 of 2024(6) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
115(2), 308(2), 352, 351(2)(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as
well as Section 3(i(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellant no. 1 has antecedent of three cases and appellant no. 2
has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that she
had gone to her purchased land for getting her house constructed
when appellants came and abused by taking caste name and
threatened not to construct the house on the land and if she
wants to construct then will have to pay an amount of Rs. 1
Lakh and ousted her from the land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that appellants have sold the land
in dispute to the informant by executing the sale deed, as such,
there appears no occasion as to why the appellants would create
disturbance for the informant in her getting a house constructed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the appeal and submits that appellants after
selling the land are not allowing the informant to take
possession, when Jamabandi in the name of the informant has
already been created. It is next submitted that case was referred
for mediation by an order dated 13.02.2026, but then mediation
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4593 of 2024(6) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
failed, it is thus submitted that if the appellants presently is
taking a stand that they are not disturbing the possession of the
informant then where was the question of mediation failing. It is
also submitted that after selling the land, the appellants for
reasons best known are not allowing the informant to take
possession and at the same time abused and assaulted her when
she had gone on the land for getting her house constructed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellants.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…