Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that despite the police exonerating report, the trial court's cognizance of the case precludes the grant of anticipatory bail and the appeal is disposed with a direction to surrender.
Summary
The appellant, Rahul Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 364, 328, 302 and 120(B) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the alleged murder of a victim who had gone missing. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the trial court, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant argued that the police investigation had exonerated him and that there was no prima facie case. The State contended that cognizance had been taken and a prima facie case existed. The High Court noted that although the police report cleared the appellant, the trial court had nonetheless taken cognizance and no Section 82/83 CrPC processes had been issued. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal, directing the appellant to surrender before the trial court on a specified date, without granting anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under the SC/ST Act when the police investigation exonerates him.
- Whether the taking of cognizance by the trial court suffices to proceed despite the absence of Section 82/83 CrPC processes.
- Whether the appellant can be ordered to surrender before the trial court pending disposal of the case.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 328, 364
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- police exoneration
- IPC
- CrPC
- criminal conspiracy
- murder
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4866 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2023 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/o Bindu Yadav Resident of Village- Maghauna, PS- Alauli,
District- Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sukh Sagar Devi W/o Kaleshwar Ram R/o Saharbanni, P.S.- Alauli, Distt.-
Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special P.P for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna 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 25.09.2025 in A.B.P. No. 80 of 2025 passed by the
learned 1st-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Khagaria in
connection with Alauli P.S. Case No. 303 of 2023 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 364, 328, 302 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(2)(v)(va)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4866 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
2/6
of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that in December 2021, Manish, petitioner and Ranjan
came to her house and requested her to send the victim to
Bengaluru with them for earning, since the victim had cleared
his matriculation examination and further that they will send Rs.
15,000/- per month, but informant refused, it is next alleged that
in march 2022 again the aforesaid three accused persons along
with two unknown accused came and in a threatening voice said
that they are going to Bengaluru, hence allow the victim to
accompany them, but informant and her family members
refused, hence they left saying that victim will have to come to
Bengaluru, it is further alleged that the victim went missing on
27.05.2022, hence informant called her relative Chhotu who
was working at Bengaluru from before and disclosed about the
occurrence and missing of the victim and asked him to find out
the victim and also disclosed the name of the aforesaid three
named accused persons including the appellant, next alleges that
Chhotu called on 06.06.2022 and disclosed that victim is in grip
of the aforesaid three named accused persons and they have
snatched the advance amount given to the victim by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4866 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
3/6
company and they did not allow him to talk to the victim and
abused by taking caste name, further Chhotu called on
11.01.2022 and disclosed that the aforesaid three named
accused persons including the appellant killed the victim by
administering poison on account of animosity existing from
before and also informed that the dead body has been brought to
the hospital where doctors doubted that the victim has been
poisoned and the company will bear half of the cost for sending
the dead body, further the dead body was received and after
cremating the dead body, a complaint case was filed on
29.07.2022, based on which the instant FIR came to be
instituted.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant based on suspicion, it is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that Chhotu
disclosed that named accused persons including the appellant
killed the victim by administering poison on account of previous
animosity, but then it is submitted that had any animosity been
existing in between the appellant and the victim, in that event
they would not have gone to the house of the victim requesting
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4866 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
4/6
the informant for sending the victim to Bengaluru. It is also
submitted that if victim would not have been on good terms
with the appellant and two others, in that event he would have
disclosed the said fact to the informant, but then it is alleged that
victim went missing on 27.05.2022 which amply demonstrates
that victim on his own left for Bengaluru. It is next submitted
that it absolutely does not stand to reason that Chhotu would not
have met the victim merely for the reason that they asked him
not to talk and meet him. It is also submitted that since Chhotu
did not talk to the victim then how come Chhotu came to know
that the money paid by the company to the victim was snatched
by the appellant and others which amply demonstrates that a
false allegation has been alleged. It is next submitted that police
after threadbare investigation came to a considered conclusion
that appellant is innocent thus submitted final form exonerating
the appellant of the allegation, but then the learned Trial Court
differing with the police report took cognizance, it is thus
submitted that when one investigating agency after threadbare
investigation came to considered conclusion that appellant is
innocent whether it would be prudent for the Court to send the
appellant to jail based on an order of cognizance which came to
be taken based on the same police report exonerating the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4866 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
5/6
appellant of the allegation.
5. Learned Special P.P for the State as well as
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes
the appeal but then are not in position to rebut the submission of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
police after investigation submitted final form exonerating the
appellant of the allegation
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that since cognizance has been
taken, as such, a prima facie case is made out.
7. On query of the Court that as to whether process
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued or not, on
which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that till date process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
has not been issued.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant,
but since police after investigation had submitted final form
exonerating the appellant of the allegation, but since cognizance
has been taken, as such, the appeal is disposed of with a
direction to the appellant to surrender before the learned Trial
Court on 09.07.2026.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4866 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
6/6
9. It is made clear that if the appellant surrenders before
the learned Trial Court on 09.07.2026, in that event the learned
Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the case on the same
day keeping in mind the observations made by this Court as
recorded hereinabove.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.