Patna High Court
Abdul Rahman @ Rahman RainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted it to the appellant subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
Abdul Rahman appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC offences alleging assault with an iron rod. The appellant claimed he had a clean record and was falsely implicated, arguing that the alleged injury to the informant's daughter was minor and not witnessed publicly. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail but noted the injury was simple and limited to one wound. The High Court examined the nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the injury, and the appellant's claim of false implication. It held that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to standard conditions and set aside the lower court’s order, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act involving alleged assault.
- Whether the allegations constitute a false implication warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the nature and severity of the alleged injury justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (B.N.S.S) — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w1), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- assault
- injury assessment
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4793 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2023 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
Abdul Rahman @ Rahman Rain Son of Late Liyakat Resident of village
-Janipur, P.S - Bisfi, District - Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ramanandan Ram Son of Late Ramcharan Ram Resident of Village-
Janipur, P.S.- Bisfi, Distt.-Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binay
Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
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 11.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 1609 of 2024 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in
connection with Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 44 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. No. 97 of 2023 registered under Sections
341, 323, 354(B), 427, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w1) and 3(2)(va) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4793 of 2024(6) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 25.06.2023, he had
gone to Kamtaul for work and at 5 O’clock, in the evening, his
daughter disclosed that appellant and his family members had
come to the house and had assaulted her and her mother.
Further, Naseema assaulted the daughter of the informant by an
iron rod causing injury on head and appellant also assaulted his
daughter by rod causing injury on head.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that his daughter disclosed that she was
assaulted by Naseema and appellant by an iron rod causing
injury on head but then the daughter of the informant has
suffered only one injury on head and the same has been opined
to be simple in nature. It is next submitted that as far as
allegation of abuse is alleged, the same was not in public view
as it is alleged that appellant along with others came to the
house of the informant where the occurrence is alleged to have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4793 of 2024(6) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
taken place.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant but then the
learned Special P.P. after perusing the case diary fairly submits
that the injury has been opined to be simple in nature and there
is only one injury on the head of the daughter of the informant.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the appellant, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.