Patna High Court
RAJESHWAR RAIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, subject to conditions and verification of the charge‑sheet status.
Summary
The appellants, accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC and Arms Act provisions for a land‑related violent incident, appealed a trial court order that refused them anticipatory bail. One appellant died during the pendency, and the court permitted withdrawal of his name. The appellants argued that the notice was validly served via a jointness application, that the charge sheet had not been filed, and that the allegations were vague and they were falsely implicated. The State opposed the appeal. The Patna High Court set aside the trial court’s refusal, directing that anticipatory bail be granted subject to bail bonds and verification that no charge sheet has been filed, otherwise the order would not take effect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the notice served via a jointness application is valid for the purposes of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of a charge sheet warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
- The scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482(2) CrPC to interfere with the trial court’s order.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑b)a, 26, 35
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- jointness application
- service of notice
- charge sheet
- criminal appeal
- Section 482 CrPC
- land dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4894 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2021 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. RAJESHWAR RAI Son of Late Anup Rai Resident of Village - Joriyahi,
Ward no.4, P.S.- Bairgania, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
2. Sunil Kumar Son of Ram Udar Rai Resident of Village - Joriyahi, Ward
no.4, P.S.- Bairgania, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
3. Sangita Devi W/o Ram Udar Rai Resident of Village - Joriyahi, Ward no.4,
P.S.- Bairgania, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
4. Lav Kumar Son of Ram Pravesh Rai @ Ram Pravesh Yadav Resident of
Village - Joriyahi, Ward no.4, P.S.- Bairgania, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shambhu Baitha Son of Late Timen Baitha Resident of village-
Jorigahi,Ward no-04,P.S-Bairagania,District-Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
9 30-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks
permission to withdraw the appeal with respect to appellant no.
1 (Rajeshwar Rai) who died during pendency of the instant
appeal.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. 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.4894 of 2021(9) dt.30-03-2026
2/5
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 30.10.2021 in A.B.P. No. 1450 of 2021 and 186 of
2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection
with Bairgania P.S. Case No. 87 of 2021 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act read with Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of
the Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
from perusal of the office report dated 13.10.2022, it would
manifest that the notice was received by the wife of respondent
no. 2. It is next submitted that a jointness application has been
filed stating that respondent no. 2 is staying with his wife.
5. Since the jointness application has been filed, as
such, the notice is deemed to be validly served.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits
that appellant nos. 2 and 4 have antecedent of one case and
appellant no. 3 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman
and the informant alleges that on 30.04.2021 at 04:00 PM, the
accused persons including the appellants came on account of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4894 of 2021(9) dt.30-03-2026
3/5
previous land dispute and were pressurizing to compromise the
earlier two criminal cases instituted by him, on objection Ram
Udar Rai fired causing injury on his left elbow, thereafter Raju
and Ram Pravesh assaulted his brother with lathi and iron rod
causing injury on head, further Sachin and Lav assaulted his son
Shashi by lathi while Sunil assaulted Anil by lathi on chest,
thereafter, Anil along with Urmila snatched gun from Ram Udar
and the same was kept by informant’s wife and thereafter the
accused fled.
7. 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
allegation 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 also submitted that side of the informant
also assaulted the appellants and his side and accordingly
Bairgania P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 was instituted from side of
the appellants against the informant and his side. It is also
submitted that specific allegation of causing firearm injury is on
Ram Udar Rai, but then Ram Udar Rai was acquitted in a duly
constituted trial. It is next submitted that as far as appellants are
concerned, the investigation against the appellants are still
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4894 of 2021(9) dt.30-03-2026
4/5
continuing and charge sheet till date has not been filed. It is
further submitted that no doubt allegation against the appellant
no. 2 is of assaulting Anil by lathi on chest, but then there is no
such injury caused to Anil and allegation of assault against Lav
is not specific rather he is alleged to have assaulted Shashi along
with Sachin by lathi and the said allegation is general and
omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the appellants will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their
innocence.
8. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 30.10.2021 in
connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No. 87 of 2021, is hereby
set aside and the appellants above-named, in the event of their
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) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Bairgania P.S. Case No. 87 of 2021 subject to the conditions as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4894 of 2021(9) dt.30-03-2026
5/5
laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
10. However, it is made clear that the learned Trial
Court before accepting the anticipatory bail bonds of the
appellants shall verify that as to whether charge sheet against the
appellants has been submitted or not and in the event if it is found
that charge sheet against the appellants has been submitted prior to
30.03.2026 in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall
not be given effect to, but if it is found that charge sheet till date
has not been submitted, in that event the anticipatory bail bonds of
the appellants shall be accepted forthwith.
11. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…