Patna High Court
Balram MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the appellant.
Summary
Balram Mahto was charged under several IPC offences and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged theft and caste‑based abuse in a shop on 4‑5 June 2024. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the allegations were inconsistent and that he was falsely implicated. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting CCTV evidence of the theft and the appellant’s prior criminal record of six cases. The Patna High Court examined the submissions and concluded that granting anticipatory bail could risk the appellant’s absconding. Consequently, the court rejected the appeal and refused anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged theft, caste‑based abuse, CCTV evidence, and prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 504, 506/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Theft
- Caste abuse
- Criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- Bail refusal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4873 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Balram Mahto S/o Sant Kumar Mahto @ Satlal Mahto @ Satlal Mahto R/o
Vill - Jiwariya Nazamat, ward No.16, Police station- Samastipur ( Mufassil),
District- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranju Devi W/o Sudheer Mahto R/o vill - Jitwarpur Nizamat ward no. 16,
P.S. - Samastipur (Mufassil), Distt. - Samastipur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 21-04-2026 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
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. 2268/2024, passed by the
learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Samastipur in connection
with Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 206/2024, registered
under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4873 of 2024(5) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has antecedent of six cases and the informant alleges
that appellant on 04.06.2024 in between 11.15 P.M.-11.45 P.M.
entered the shop of the informant and committed theft of
Rs.30,000/- along with other articles, further on 05.06.2024,
while the son of the informant was sitting in the shop, when
appellant came and abused her son by taking caste name and
threatened and further threw the articles on the road, next
alleges that appellant was seen in CCTV footage committing
theft in the shop.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
informant alleges that on 04.06.2024 the appellant committed
theft in her shop but then she also alleges that on 05.06.2024 the
appellant again came and abused her son by taking caste name
and threw all the articles on the road. It is thus submitted that
had the appellant committed theft in the shop of the informant,
then why on 05.06.2024 again the appellant would have come to
the shop of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4873 of 2024(5) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal and submits that specific allegation is alleged in the FIR
that appellant was seen committing theft in the shop of the
informant which got captured in the CCTV footage and from
pleadings made in appeal, it would manifest that said allegation
is not denied and appellant has antecedent of six cases. It is
further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the appellant may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Special P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…