Patna High Court
Vikash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted under the SC/ST Act when the principal accusation is directed at another co‑accused and the applicant does not pose a risk of absconding, but it must be denied where the allegations are substantiated against the applicant and the alibi is weak.
Summary
The case arose from a complaint by Sumitra Devi alleging that Nitesh Kumar Yadav repeatedly harassed her family over the phone, threatened to set their house on fire, and subsequently, with accomplices, arsoned the house causing death of livestock and injury to a family member. Vikash Kumar, a friend of Nitesh, was also implicated as an accomplice. Both appellants sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challenging the trial court's refusal. The court examined the thrust of the allegations, noting that the medical report showed the alleged injury pre‑dated the incident and that the primary accusation was against Nitesh, not Vikash, and that Vikash had provided an alibi of being in Karnataka. Relying on parity with a previously granted bail and finding no risk of absconding, the court allowed anticipatory bail to Vikash with conditions. Conversely, for Nitesh, the court found the plea of alibi weak, the allegations substantiated, and therefore rejected his anticipatory bail application. The orders were: appeal allowed for Vikash (Criminal Appeal SJ No. 4863) and appeal dismissed for Nitesh (Criminal Appeal SJ No. 3767).
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to grant anticipatory bail.
- Whether the primary thrust of the prosecution’s case is against the appellant or another co‑accused.
- Whether the appellant poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
- Whether the alibi evidence presented by the appellant is sufficient to defeat the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Animal Cruelty Act — s. 11
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 354, 435
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- arson
- caste-based atrocity
- IPC offences
- alibi
- parity in bail decisions
- risk of absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4863 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2024 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Vikash Kumar Son of Madan Ray Resident of Village - Dipau, P.S. - Kotwa,
District - East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Sumitra Devi Wife of Late Nagendra Ram Resident of Village - Kotwa,
Ward No.7, P.S. - Kotwa, District - East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3767 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2024 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Nitesh Kumar yadav son of RLalbabu Ray @ Lalbabu Ray R/o village -
Talwa, ps - kotwa , District -East champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar bihar
2. Sumitra Devi Wife of Late Nagendra Ram Village- Kotwa, ward no. 7, Ps-
Kotwa, Dist- East champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4863 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3767 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 13-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
2/9
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. 3618 of
2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA)
Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with
Kotwa P.S. Case No. 61 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 435, 354 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(a) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that informant despite receiving notice chooses
not to appear and contest. It is further submitted that
informant alleges that she lives alone with her three
daughters, next alleges that Nitesh called from his mobile
no. 8863959484 at 8:35 PM on her mobile and wanted to
talk to her daughter, but since informant had picked the
phone, as such, Nitesh started talking inappropriately with
the informant, next alleges that several calls came, but
informant kept disconnecting the calls without picking, it
is further alleged that on 09.03.2024, Nitesh again called
at 8:35 PM, but she gave the mobile to her brother-in-law
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
3/9
Mithu, but Nitesh threatened that he will kill him and will
put the house on fire and also abused him by taking caste
name but Mithu recorded the call and also abused Nitesh,
next alleges that on the next date at 2:00 AM, Nitesh
came with Vikash and others and put the house on fire,
hence family members woke up and tried to douse the
fire, but in the fire household articles along with six goats,
buffalo and a calf got burnt to death, next alleges that the
accused persons wanted to kill her and her daughter,
further even her father-in-law got burn injury.
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 allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that thrust of the allegation is against Nitesh and appellant
is alleged to have accompanied him along with others and
thereafter put the house of the informant on fire causing
death of animals and father-in-law of the informant
suffered burn injury, but then it is submitted that during
course of investigation, the doctor opined that the injury
suffered by the father-in-law of the informant was an old
injury suffered about 28 days back. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
4/9
that the date of occurrence is 09.03.2024 and FIR came to
be instituted on 10.03.2024 and the doctor examined the
father-in-law of the informant on 15.03.2024, as such, the
injury suffered by the father-in-law of the informant as
per the doctor was caused on 15.02.2024 i.e., much before
the date of occurrence for which the instant FIR has been
instituted. It is reiterated and submitted that informant
specifically alleges that it was Nitesh who was after her
daughter and was calling repeatedly and had abused her
brother-in-law and threatened to put the house on fire, but
since appellant is a friend of Nitesh, as such, came to be
implicated with general and omnibus allegation. It is thus
submitted that case of appellant is on a different footing
from the case of Nitesh.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal but then is not in a position to rebut the submission
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that thrust of the allegation is against Nitesh and
it was Nitesh who had threatened Mithu of putting the
house on fire. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the appellant may abscond, on
which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
5/9
appellant submits that appellant will not abscond rather
will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the order dated 11.09.2024 is hereby set aside and the
appellant above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, 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/successor court in
connection with Kotwa P.S. Case No. 61 of 2024 subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
the BNSS.
7. One of the bailors of the appellant shall be his
father Madan Ray.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3767 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special P.P. for the State.
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
6/9
“SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory
bail vide order dated 24.06.2024 in A.B.P. No. 2161 of
2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA)
Act, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with
Kotwas P.S. Case No. 61 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 435, 354 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 11 Animal Cruelty Act as
well as Section 3(a)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant submits that the instant appeal was tagged with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4863 of 2024. It is further
submitted that informant despite receiving notice chooses
not to appear and contest. It is further submitted that
appellant has antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that she lives alone with her three daughters, next
alleges that Nitesh called from his mobile no.
8863959484 at 8:35 PM on her mobile and wanted to talk
to her daughter, but since informant had picked the phone,
as such, Nitesh started talking inappropriately with the
informant, next alleges that several calls came, but
informant kept disconnecting the calls without picking, it
is further alleged that on 09.03.2024, Nitesh again called
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
7/9
at 8:35 PM, but she gave the mobile to her brother-in-law
Mithu, but Nitesh threatened that he will kill him and will
put the house on fire and also abused him by taking caste
name but Mithu recorded the call and also abused Nitesh,
next alleges that on the next date at 2:00 AM, Nitesh
came with Vikash and others and put the house on fire,
hence family members woke up and tried to douse the
fire, but in the fire household articles along with six goats,
buffalo and a calf got burnt to death, next alleges that the
accused persons wanted to kill her and her daughter,
further even her father-in-law got burn injury.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
similarly situated co-accused Vikash had approached this
Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Appeal
(SJ) No. 4863 of 2024 and the same came to be allowed
after considering the case on merit and in detail, as such,
based on parity, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant seeks anticipatory bail for the appellant.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal and submits that while granting the privilege of
anticipatory bail to Vikash, the Court had considered the
case on merit and in detail and while granting bail to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
8/9
Vikash, it was recorded that thrust of the allegation is
against Nitesh.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that appellant has been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It
is next submitted that appellant on the date of occurrence
was at Dharwad in Karnataka and was working with L&T
company and in the Trial Court had annexed attendance
register and gate pass to show that he was not present at
the place of occurrence, on which the learned APP
submits that it is a plea of alibi and plea of alibi is a weak
plea. It is also submitted that there is a specific allegation
against the appellant that he called on the mobile number
of the informant for speaking to her daughter and when
informant picked up the mobile phone, the appellant
talked inappropriately with her and thereafter made
several calls which the informant did not pick and
ultimately on 09.03.2024, when appellant again called,
the mobile was given to Mithu who recorded the call. It is
also submitted that appellant has not even remotely taken
a plea in the appeal that since he was in Karnataka, as
such, his tower location of the mobile was not at the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4863 of 2024(5) dt.13-07-2026
9/9
of occurrence on the date of occurrence. It is thus
submitted that had the appellant been at Karnataka on the
date of occurrence then definitely the said plea would
have been taken.
7. Learned Spl. PP reiterates and submits that house
of the informant was put on fire in which animals died
and if the injury suffered by the father of the informant
does not get corroborated by the report of the doctor that
may be an embellishment, but then that itself does not
discredit the entire prosecution case.
8. Considering the submission made by the learned
Spl. PP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
rajesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.