Patna High Court
Dhiraj PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the remaining appellants, subject to conditions under CrPC Section 482(2).
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a trial court order refusing anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged extortion, assault, and caste‑based abuse. The appeal was withdrawn for appellants Dhiraj Pandit and Chandan Kumar, and those portions were dismissed as withdrawn. For appellants Harendra Pandit and Sandeep Kumar, the court examined the informant's allegations, the claim of false implication, and the relevance of the informant’s and employee’s caste status. Considering the submissions, the High Court set aside the lower court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the two remaining appellants, subject to bail bonds and sureties under CrPC Section 482(2). The order thus allowed the appeal for those appellants while dismissing the withdrawn parts.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act to grant anticipatory bail.
- Whether the informant’s allegations constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the caste status of the informant and the employee affects the charge under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing anticipatory bail in light of the claims of false implication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- caste based assault
- criminal procedure
- withdrawal of appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4848 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2025 Thana- GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR District-
Siwan
======================================================
1. Dhiraj Pandit S/o Umashankar Pandit R/o Village - Chachopali, Kumhar
Tola, P.S - Gautam Budh Nagar, District - Siwan
2. Harendra Pandit @ Hareram Pandit S/o Late Munshi Pandit R/o Village -
Chachopali, Kumhar Tola, P.S - Gautam Budh Nagar, District - Siwan
3. Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Pandit S/o Lal Babu Pandit R/o Village -
Chachopali, Kumhar Tola, P.S - Gautam Budh Nagar, District - Siwan
4. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Pandit S/o Lal Babu Pandit R/o Village -
Chachopali, Kumhar Tola, P.S - Gautam Budh Nagar, District - Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jang Bahadur Sharma S/o Arjun Sharma R/o Village - Saraiya, P.S - Gautam
Budha Nagar, District - Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the 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 18.11.2025
in A.B.P. No. 2454 of 2025 passed by the learned 1 st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Siwan in
connection with G.B. Nagar P.S. Case No. 321 of 2025 registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4848 of 2025(4) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 303(2), 308(3), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, after some argument, seeks permission to withdraw the
appeal with respect to the appellants no. 1 and 4, namely, Dhiraj
Pandit and Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Pandit.
4. Permission is accorded.
5. Accordingly, the appeal with respect to the appellants
no. 1 and 4 is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants no. 2 and 3 are persons with
clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 21.07.2025, at
about 03:30 a.m., when he was at his shop when the accused
persons including the appellants no. 2 and 3 came variously armed
and started abusing and demanded ransom of Rs.1 lakh. On
objection, Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Pandit gave orders to kill
on which Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Pandit assaulted the
informant on head by sword causing injury and thereafter Dhiraj
Pandit along with Deepak Pandit assaulted the informant’s brother,
namely, Raj Kumar Sharma on head by hockey stick and rod
causing injury and thereafter all the accused assaulted an employee
of the shop, namely, Anurag Kumar Manjhi and abused by taking
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4848 of 2025(4) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
caste name and Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Pandit and Sandeep
Kumar @ Sandeep Pandit also took away gold chain of the
informant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants no. 2 and 3
submits that appellants no. 2 and 3 have been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that since
the informant and the appellants no. 2 and 3 were known to each
other, as such, it does not appear probable that the appellants no. 2
and 3 would have come to the shop of the informant for
demanding extortion as the appellants no. 2 and 3 have been
implicated in the case by name. It is next submitted that G.B.
Nagar P.S. Case No. 330 of 2025 has been instituted by the side of
the appellants no. 2 and 3 against the informant and his side. It is
also submitted that informant does not belong to the SC/ST
Community but then his employ Anurag Kumar Manjhi belongs to
SC Community, as such, in order to implicate the appellants no. 2
and 3, a false allegation is alleged that all the accused assaulted
Anurag Kumar Manjhi and abused him by taking caste name but
then allegation of assaulting Anurag Kumar Manjhi and abusing
him is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that
informant had taken loan from the side of the appellants no. 2 and
3 for running his shop and the same was not being returned on
account of which an altercation took place when the instant FIR
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4848 of 2025(4) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
came to be instituted. It is next submitted that no doubt, injury of
the informant has been opined to be grievous and the opinion is
reserved with regard to the injury suffered by Raj Kumar Sharma
but then allegation of assaulting them is not against the appellants
no. 2 and 3.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants no. 2 and 3.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants no. 2 and 3, let the
appellants no. 2 and 3, above-named, in the event of their 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) each 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 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this
appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…