Patna High Court
Chhedi Rai @ Chedi RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, directing bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, five members of the Rai family, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged theft and assault on a land dispute. Their anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal, they argued that the FIR was lodged nine days after the incident, the injury report showed no external injuries, and the allegations were false and motivated by a land dispute. The Special Public Prosecutor could not refute these points. The Patna High Court set aside the lower court’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds, subject to Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of external injuries undermine the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the allegations constitute offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting anticipatory bail is sustainable.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- FIR delay
- land dispute
- false implication
- bail under Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4849 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-447 Year-2025 Thana- BASANTPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Chhedi Rai @ Chedi Ray Son of LT Jodha Ray @ Late Jodha Rai, Resident
of village- Brit Bagahi, P.S.- Basantpur, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar.
2. Ranjit Rai @ Ranjit Ray Son of LT Jodha Ray @ Late Jodha Rai, Resident
of village- Brit Bagahi, P.S.- Basantpur, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar
3. Robin Kumar Rai @ Rubin Kumar @ Robin Kumar Son of Chhedi Rai @
Chedi Ray, Resident of village- Brit Bagahi, P.S.- Basantpur, Distt.- Siwan,
Bihar
4. Chhathi Kumar @ Chathi Kumar @ Chhathu Kumar Rai @ Chhathi Rai Son
of Chhedi Rai @ Chedi Ray Resident of village- Brit Bagahi, P.S.-
Basantpur, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar
5. Pappu Rai @ Papu Ray Son of Ranjit Rai @ Ranjit Ray, Resident of village-
Brit Bagahi, P.S.- Basantpur, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raghuwar Manjhi Son of Jyoti Manjhi Resident of Sani Bagahi, P.S-
Basantpur, Distt- Siwan, Bihar. Mob-7635031912.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhijeet Abhigyan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated
17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-
cum-Special Court, Siwan in connection with ABP No.2644 of
2025 arising out of Basantpur P. S. Case No.447 of 2025,
instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4849 of 2025(4) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
has been rejected.
3. The learned Special P. P. submits that in
compliance of the order dated 23.02.2026, the Superintendent of
Police, Siwan was informed about the pendency of the instant
appeal and was also requested to inform the informant, so that
he appears in the appeal on the date fixed. It is next submitted
that informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear
and contest.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 17.07.2025 at about
2.00 P.M., all the accused persons including the appellants
committed theft of his tree from his field and when his son
objected, all the accused persons abused him and assaulted him
by lathi and danda and Ranjit assaulted his son by khanti
causing injury on his back and when informant tried to save
him, the accused persons abused him by taking caste name and
also assaulted by lathi, danda and feast and Chhedi and Ranjit
punched him on his back and stomach.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4849 of 2025(4) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is further submitted that there is a land
dispute in between the informant and the appellants’ side. It is
also submitted that the date of occurrence is 17.07.2025 and the
FIR came to be instituted on 26.07.2025 i.e. after a delay of
more than nine days which also casts an aspersion on the case of
the prosecution. It is next submitted that though it is alleged that
Ranjit assaulted the son of the informant by khanti causing
injury, but then, from perusal of the injury report, it would
manifest that the same records that no external injuries were
found on the body of the son of the informant which also belies
the allegation. It is further submitted that allegation of assault
and abuse is general and omnibus in nature and this perhaps
explains why the informant despite receiving notice chooses not
to appear and contest.
6. The learned Special P.P. opposes the appeal, but
then, is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that there is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4849 of 2025(4) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
delay of nine days in instituting the FIR and the injury report of
the son of the informant records that there is no external injury,
but then, the injury has been opined to be simple.
7. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 17.10.2025 is set-aside.
8. The appeal stands allowed.
9. The appellants, above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-
Special Court, Siwan in connection with ABP No.2644 of 2025
arising out of Basantpur P. S. Case No.447 of 2025, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…