Patna High Court
Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the Special Judge’s order and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, allowing the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Sumit Kumar, was charged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting the informant’s family, attempting to forcefully marry the informant’s daughter, and abusing caste names in public. The appellant contended that the case was false, arising from a personal dispute, and that his family members had already been granted anticipatory bail. The Special Judge had denied bail, prompting the appellant to file an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, asserting that the appeal was within the limitation period of Section 14A(3). The High Court examined whether the alleged caste abuse was made in public view and considered the precedent set in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand. Finding that the allegations of caste abuse were not prima facie made in public and noting that co‑accused had been granted bail, the Court set aside the Special Judge’s order, directed the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse was made in public view, attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act is within the limitation period prescribed by Section 14A(3).
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste abuse
- forceful marriage
- criminal procedure
- limitation period
- bail jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4673 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
Sumit Kumar S/o- Bulu Singh R/v- Ramnagar P.S- Tekari District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Devi W/o- Lalu Paswan R/v- Ramnagar Po- Mahmana, P.S- Tekari
District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mrigendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) against
the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Exclusive SC/ST Court, Gayaji, in A.B.P. No. 226/2025 in
connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 191/2025 registered under
Sections 318(4), 319(2), 351, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS and
Sections 126(1), 126(2), 115(2), 74, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5)
of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and
3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed
under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Respondent no. 2, informant joined the present Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4673 of 2025(4) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
proceedings.
5. As per FIR, appellant and his family members came
to the house of informant equipped with lathi, danda, firearms etc
and started abusing informant and her family members,
meanwhile other co-accused persons made an attempt to take
away the daughter of informant from her home for forceful
marriage with appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that due to certain disputes between this appellant and
daughter of informant, who were student of same coaching
centre, present false case was lodged. It is further submitted that
with same allegations father, brother and mother of this appellant
were granted anticipatory bail by learned Trial Court, itself. It is
also submitted that allegation qua abusing caste name in public
view not appears available. In support of his submission learned
counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand,
[(2020) 10 SCC 710].
7. Learned Special P.P. duly assisted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of informant, while opposing the prayer of
bail submitted that appellant made an attempt for forceful
marriage with daughter of informant and also to abuse their
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4673 of 2025(4) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
family members by caste name.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, as
mentioned above and by taking note of fact as with same
allegation other co-accused persons have already granted
anticipatory bail, where abusing in caste name prima-facie also
not appears to be made in public view, accordingly, above-named
appellant in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, is
directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned learned Special
Judge, Exclusive SC/ST Court, Gayaji/concerned Court, where
the case is pending in connection with A.B.P. No. 226 of 2025 in
connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 191/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 20.08.2025 is
hereby set aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.