Patna High Court
Brajendra Kumar @ Brajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The anticipatory bail appeal is dismissed as not maintainable because cognizance under the SC/ST Act had already been taken.
Summary
The appellants, including Brajendra Kumar and others, were charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 504 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Exclusive Special Judge on 15 October 2025. The State opposed the bail, arguing that cognizance under the SC/ST Act had already been taken on 1 October 2025, rendering the bail application non‑maintainable. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar, held that once cognizance is taken under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Consequently, the appeal for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable after cognizance has been taken under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 504
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- maintainability
- criminal procedure
- bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4789 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Brajendra Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar S/o Sri Sadhu Prasad Resident of -
Sebri Nagar, P.S - Rupaspur, District - Patna
2. Sabita Devi W/o Brajendra Kumar Resident of - Sebri Nagar, P.S -
Rupaspur, District - Patna
3. Suraj Kumar S/o Brajendra Kumar Resident of - Sebri Nagar, P.S -
Rupaspur, District - Patna
4. Sunny Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Sharma Resident of - Sebri Nagar, P.S -
Rupaspur, District - Patna
5. Balram @ Balram Chandra Prabhakar S/o Sri Ram Naresh Yadav Resident
of - Sebri Nagar, P.S - Rupaspur, District - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sangita Devi W/o Late Munna Manjhi Resident of - Sebri Nagar, P.S -
Rupaspur, District - Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellants and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
15.10.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Civil Court (Sadar), Patna in ABP No. 4280 of 2025 arising
out of Complaint Case No. 57 (C) of 2024, registered under
Sections 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4789 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
bail of appellants has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that the instant anticipatory bail is not maintainable as
cognizance under SC/ST Act has already been taken by learned
Court below on 1.10.2025 and in this connection, he refers to a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in case of
Bachu Das Vs State of Bihar and others, reported in Cr.
Appeal No. 314 of 2014.
4. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in case of Bachu Das (supra), instant appeal filed
for pre-arrest bail to the appellants, is dismissed as being not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…