Patna High Court
Poonam DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants were accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting a woman and snatching her mobile phone on 3 August 2024. The Special Judge had rejected their anticipatory bail application. The appellants contended that the complaint was false, arising from a prior dispute over cattle damage, and that the alleged assault occurred inside the complainant's house, not in public view, thus not attracting the SC/ST Act. The State and the complainant opposed bail. Considering the nature of the accusation, the clean antecedents of the appellants, and the lack of a specific overt act, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order denying bail, and directed that bail be granted upon furnishing bonds and sureties. The decision effectively grants anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against the appellants constitute an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the nature of the accusation and the appellants' clean antecedent.
- Whether the alleged assault, occurring inside a private residence, falls within the ambit of the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115, 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352, 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- false allegations
- bail jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4741 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Poonam Devi Wife of Udgar Rai Resident of Village- Gondhsisia ward no 5,
PS- Vidhyapati Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
2. Nitish Kumar Son of Udgar RAi Resident of Village- Gondhsisia ward no 5,
PS- Vidhyapati Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
3. Manjeet Kumar Son of Ram Pukar Rai Resident of Village- Gondhsisia ward
no 5, PS- Vidhyapati Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
4. Ranjeet Kumar Son of Ram Pukar Rai Resident of Village- Gondhsisia ward
no 5, PS- Vidhyapati Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
5. Sanjeet Kumar Son of Ram Pukar Rai Resident of Village- Gondhsisia ward
no 5, PS- Vidhyapati Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pinki Devi Wife of Nagendra Ram Resident of Village- Godhsisia ward no
5, PS- Vidhyapati Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. Public Prosecutor
For the R.No. 2 : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, respondent
no. 2 and the State.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
12.09.2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, Samastipur in ABP No. 2437 of 2024 arising out of
Samastipur SC/ST P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024 registered under
Sections 126(2), 115, 303(2), 76, 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4741 of 2024(4) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellants has been
rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.08.2024 at
about 8 PM, when informant was at her house, all the F.I.R.
named accused persons, including these appellants, came at her
house, abused her by caste name and called her witch. Upon
protest, all the accused persons assaulted her by means of fists,
feet and sticks and appellant no. 2 snatched her mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent. As a matter of fact, informant’s cattle
destroyed paddy crop of the appellants and when they went to
complain about the same, appellants were brutally assaulted by
informant and others for which Vidyapatinagar P. S. Case No.
110 of 2024 was lodged by appellants’ side against informant
and others for the aforesaid incident. The present case with false
allegation has been lodged only to save their skin from the
aforesaid case. Allegation of assault is general and omnibus and
there is no allegation of any specific overt act against the
appellants. He further submits that the alleged incident took
place inside the house of informant and not within the public
view, as such, no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4741 of 2024(4) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
appellants. Appellants claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well
as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed
the bail application.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and clean
antecedent, let the appellants, as named above, in the event of
their arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today,
be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Samastipur in ABP No. 2437 of 2024 arising out of
Samastipur SC/ST P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024.
7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and
impugned order dated 12.09.2024 is set aside with respect to
these appellants only.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…