Patna High Court
Krish Singh @ Krish Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Krish Singh and others, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting the informant's son at a bus stand. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellants argued they have clean records, the FIR lacks a specific motive, and the informant is not an eyewitness, rendering the allegations vague and omnibus. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the claim that the informant was not a direct witness. The Patna High Court held that the allegations were insufficiently specific and that the appellants could be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions, setting aside the lower court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and anticipatory bail was granted.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the FIR allegations to justify denial of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the informant’s status as a non‑eyewitness affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act require a specific motive for bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- assault
- eyewitness
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4695 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-669 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Krish Singh @ Krish Kumar Singh Son of Santosh Singh R/o Village -
Adhawar, P.S. - Mohania, Dist. - Kaimur.
2. Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Singh Son of Nanhku Singh R/o Village
- Adhawar, P.S. - Mohania, Dist. - Kaimur.
3. Anshu Singh @ Anshu Kumar @ Anshu Kumar Singh Son of Mitu Singh @
Mrityunjay Singh R/o Village - Adhawar, P.S. - Mohania, Dist. - Kaimur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shiv Bhajan Pasawan Son of Late Ram Ji Pasawan R/o Village - Sarhula,
Post - Vadhini, P.S. - Mohania, Dist. - Kaimur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms.Kiran Kumari Sharma
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
Mr. Amit Ranjan, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Binay Krishna 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 7-10-2025 in A.B.P. No. 1827 of 2025 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in
connection with Mohania P.S. Case No. 669 of 2025 registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4695 of 2025(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,
352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that appellants intercepted his son 2-8-2025 at a bus
stand and assaulted him by fighter etc. causing injury on head.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same
does not assign any motive for the occurrence. It is also
submitted that allegation of assault is general and omnibus in
nature, i.e., no specific allegation of assault is alleged against
the appellants. It is further submitted that informant is not an
eyewitness to the occurrence.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants, but then are not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that informant is not an
eyewitness to the occurrence and the allegation of assault and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4695 of 2025(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
abuse is general and omnibus in nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…