Patna High Court
BRIJENDRA SAO @ BIJENDRA SAWversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, setting aside the lower court’s order denying bail.
Summary
The appellants, Brijendra Sao, Bijay Sao and Dipul Sao, were charged under IPC sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 504 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting informant Vimal Paswan and his son during a land‑possession dispute. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. On appeal, the counsel argued that the allegations were vague, there was no specific overt act proved against the appellants, and the incident did not occur in public view, thus not attracting the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the facts, noted the clean antecedent of the appellants and the lack of a clear case under the SC/ST Act, and ordered that bail be granted upon surrender within eight weeks on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the lower court’s order was set aside for the appellants.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants under the circumstances.
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific overt act sufficient to sustain a bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 323, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- land dispute
- SC/ST Act
- IPC
- bail order
- criminal appeal
- scheduled caste
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4835 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2021 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Brijendra Sao @ Bijendra Saw Son of Bhikhar Saw Resident of Village -
Charkawan Haji, P.S.- Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad (Bihar)
2. Bijay Sao Son of Bhikhar Saw Resident of Village - Charkawan Haji, P.S.-
Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad (Bihar)
3. Dipul Sao @ VIPUL KUMAR Son of Sanjay Saw Resident of Village -
Charkawan Haji, P.S.- Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad (Bihar)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vimal Paswan Son of Ramnandan Paswan Resident of Village - Charkawan
Haji, P.S.- Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad (Bihar)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. Public Prosecutor
For the R. No. 2 : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, respondent
no. 2 and the State.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
19.03.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Aurangabad in ABP No. 314 of 2021 arising out of
Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2021 registered under Sections
147, 149, 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of
appellants has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4835 of 2021(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
3. As per F.I.R., informant namely, Vimal Paswan
alleged that on 04.03.2021, all the accused persons including
these appellants came and started abusing and assaulting
informant and his son . When son of informant, his brother
raised objections, they were also assaulted by accused persons,
as a result of which, son of informant sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
assertion of title and possession over a piece of land, led to
maarpeet between the parties, in which both parties inflicted
injuries on each other. Allegation of assault is general and
omnibus and there is no allegation of any specific overt act
against the appellants. It is not the case of informant that alleged
incident occurred within public view and as such, no case under
SC/ST Act is made out against the 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 aforesaid facts, 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4835 of 2021(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in
ABP No. 314 of 2021 arising out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 72
of 2021.
7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and
impugned order dated 19.03.2021 is set aside with respect to
these appellants only.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…