Patna High Court
Malti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, set aside the order of the Special Judge, and imposed bail conditions.
Summary
The appellants, four residents of Amraut Dih, filed a criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail and setting aside the order dated 29‑08‑2025 of the Exclusive Special Judge, Gaya, in a case arising from Bahera P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025. They were charged under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (including offences of assault, theft, and outraging modesty) and under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the victim’s house, assaulted family members, stole money and ornaments, and used caste‑based abusive language. The defence argued that the allegations were split, that the SC/ST Act ingredients were absent, that the FIR was filed retaliatorily, and that the appellants had clean antecedents. The State and the second respondent opposed bail, citing serious injuries and alleged outraging of modesty. The court held that the ingredients of the SC/ST provision were not satisfied, and, considering the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail with conditions, setting aside the earlier order of the Special Judge.
Issues considered
- Whether the ingredients of Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are satisfied in the present case.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite charges of assault, theft, and outraging modesty under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the order of the Exclusive Special Judge dated 29‑08‑2025 should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 2(1)(d), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 480(3), 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- assault
- theft
- outraging modesty
- caste based violence
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4631 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- Bahera District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Malti Devi W/o Naresh Yadav R/o Village - Amraut Dih , Amraut, P.s.-
Bahera, District -Gaya
2. Baleshwar Yadav S/o Late Faguni Yadav R/o Village - Amraut Dih , Amraut,
P.s.- Bahera, District -Gaya
3. Vijay Yadav S/o Late Chandru Yadav @ Late Chandan Yadav R/o Village -
Amraut Dih , Amraut, P.s.- Bahera, District -Gaya
4. Munwa Devi @ Manava Devi W/o Mukhlal Yadav R/o Village - Amraut Dih
, Amraut, P.s.- Bahera, District -Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Usha Devi W/o Badri Chaudhary R/o Village - Amraut Dih , Amraut, P.s.-
Bahera, District -Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Satya Veer, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present Cr. Appeal (SJ) application has been
filed for seeking grant of bail and setting aside the order dated
29.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 222 of 2025 arising out of Bahera P.S.
Case No. 89 of 2025, passed by the Exclusive Special Judge,
S.C./S.T., Gayaji, for the offence punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76, 303(2), 351(2), 352 & 3(5) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4631 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/5
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS,
2023”) and under Section 3(i) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
10 named accused persons, including the present appellants,
alleging that the accused persons used criminal force and
attempted to commit an offence by tearing the blouse of the
victim, however, she somehow saved herself. Subsequently, the
accused persons entered the house of the victim, assaulted the
husband, son, and daughter of the informant, snatched Rs.
50,000/- and gold ornaments from the almirah, and fled away.
Thereafter, some of the accused persons started assaulting with
lathi and danda, inflicting injuries on the husband of the
informant, and abused him using caste-based words, threatening
that if a case was lodged, there would be dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel
submits that the allegations are in two parts. In the first part,
allegations have been made in the present case regarding
outraging the modesty of the informant against three named
accused persons. Counsel further submits that subsequently the
names of all family members have been inserted in the FIR.
5. Counsel further submits that there are no
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4631 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/5
ingredients of Section 3(i)(r)(s) in the present case, as the only
allegation is that the accused persons entered the house of the
informant, which subsequently resulted in a scuffle in which the
informant’s husband received an injury on his left leg and on his
head. Counsel further submits that the incident is otherwise, he
submits that on the evening of 04.06.2025, when the son of one
of the appellants was going to school, he instructed the
informant’s side not to engage in gambling, and it is due to this
reason, the scuffle took place. For this, the appellants’ side has
already lodged a criminal case bearing Bahera P.S. Case No. 88
of 2025.
6. Counsel further submits that when the informant’s
side received information about the lodging of the FIR, they
filed the present criminal case later on, namely, Bahera P.S.
Case No. 89 of 2025, in retaliation. Counsel further submits that
both sides are residents of the same village and the scuffle took
place over a petty matter, but the initiation was made by the
informant’s side. Counsel further submits that the criminal
antecedents of the appellants are clean, and they are ready to
fulfil all the conditions whatsoever may be imposed upon them.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is true that no
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4631 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
4/5
specific allegation has been made, however, injuries have been
sustained and the said injuries are serious in nature. Counsel
further submits that there are direct allegations against three
persons, as they entered the house of the informant and tried to
outrage her modesty.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for bail of the appellants but fairly submits
that there is a lack of ingredients under Section 3(i) (r) (s) of the
S.C./S.T. Act. Counsel further fairly submits that there is a case
and counter-case between the parties, and both parties are
residents of the same village.
9. In the present facts and circumstances of this case,
let the appellants named above be granted bail, on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the
satisfaction of Exclusive Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Gaya Ji, in
connection with A.B.P. No. 222 of 2025 arising out of Bahera
P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
U/s 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with other following
conditions:-
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member of the appellants who shall provide official
document to show his bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4631 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
5/5
(ii) the appellants shall appear on each
and every date before the Trial Court and failure to
do so for two consecutive dates without plausible
reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds by
the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the appellants shall desist from
committing any criminal offence again, failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 29.08.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 222 of 2025, arising out of Bahera P.S. Case No. 89 of
2025, passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Gaya, is
hereby set aside, and the present anticipatory bail application
stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…