Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars it, and directed the appellants to appear before the trial court to seek regular bail.
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case alleging assault and non‑payment of wages. They contended that the complaint was false, the police had filed a closure report, and the trial court had taken cognizance without hearing, violating Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The State and the second respondent argued that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail and that the offences under the IPC and the Act were prima facie established. The court examined Supreme Court precedents limiting the scope of Section 3(1)(r)/(s) and the bar under Section 18, and noted the procedural irregularity in taking cognizance. It concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted, directing the appellants to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court, and disposed of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act when Section 18 expressly bars bail.
- Whether the trial court's taking of cognizance without hearing the accused violates Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and affects bail considerations.
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within the ambit of offences under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act in view of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- Whether the repeal of the IPC sections alleged impacts the validity of the trial court's cognizance.
- Whether the appellants should be directed to surrender and apply for regular bail instead of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 223
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 379
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 18, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 18 bar
- cognizance without hearing
- police closure report
- regular bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- IPC offences
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4715 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2024 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/o- Mathura Singh @ Mathura Prasad Singh Resident
of Village- Baksanda P.S-Parsa District- Saran
2. Manish Kumar Singh S/o- Sunil Kumar Singh Resident of Village-
Baksanda P.S-Parsa District- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Yogendra Manjhi S/o- Late Bujhawan Manjhi R/v- Mashrak Takth, Ps-
Mashrak Dist- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manjesh Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl.PP for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for
anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra in
A.B.P. No. 3887 of 2025, arising out of Mashrak P.S. Case No.
565 of 2024, registered for the alleged offences under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4715 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
2/5
323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the respondent no. 2
was employed with the appellants and the allegation against
them is that they did not make payment of the remuneration of
respondent no. 2 and when respondent no. 2 demanded the
payment, he was abused and assaulted by the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The
respondent no. 2 was not the employee of the appellants rather
he has been put by the son-in-law and the Samadhi of appellant
no. 1 in the background of case filed by the daughter of
appellant no. 1 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
against her in-laws and she has also filed a case for dissolution
of marriage. Learned counsel further submits earlier the matter
was investigated by the police and the police submitted a
closure report finding the case false. However, the learned trial
court differed with the police report and took cognizance under
Sections 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. Learned counsel further submits that the cognizance has
been taken after coming into force of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4715 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
3/5
and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The learned trial court
has taken cognizance without hearing the other side against the
mandate of Section 223 of BNSS which provides that
cognizance of an offence shall not be taken by the Magistrate
without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused persons.
Further, the cognizance has been taken for the offences alleged
under the Indian Penal Code which stands repealed. Learned
counsel further submits that it is out and out a false case.
Learned counsel further submits that though Section 18 of
SC/ST (PoA) Act bars grant of anticipatory bail to the accused
but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshaw Mahto @
Keshaw Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. passed in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12144 of 2025 has held that in
absence of insult and intimidation by the accused to a member
of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, no offence is
made out under Section 3(1)(s). The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further held that even mere knowledge of the fact that the
complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r). In the present
case, the allegation is not believable. Learned counsel referred
to the case of Chandan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar
& Anr. in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1218 of 2025, wherein
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4715 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
4/5
finding that the cognizance has been taken by the court, learned
Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the appeal with direction to the
appellants to surrender before the learned trial court on the date
fixed and the learned trial court was directed to dispose of the
matter keeping in mind the fact that the appellants were found
innocent by the police during investigation. Learned counsel for
the appellants submits that the appellants should not be allowed
to suffer on the ground of technicalities.
5. However, learned Spl. PP as well as learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently contend that the
present appeal is not maintainable. Learned for the respondent
no. 2 submits that no anticipatory bail is maintainable due to bar
of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and the appellants can
surrender and seek regular bail from the concerned court.
Learned counsel referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2014, wherein it has been
held that when the court arrived a prima facie conclusion that
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act was
made out, in view of bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA)
Act grant of anticipatory bail was not justified.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4715 of 2025 dt.24-02-2026
5/5
6. Since it has come on record that cognizance has
been taken by the learned trial court differing from the police
report, the present appeal is disposed of with direction to the
appellants to appear before the learned trial court on 09.03.2026
and seek regular bail and the learned trial court shall dispose of
the prayer for bail of the appellants on the same date in the
background of the fact that the police during investigation found
the case false against the appellants and the order of cognizance
has been passed without hearing of the appellants.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date 25.02.2026
Checking your session…