Patna High Court
Uday ChaurasiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that the appellants are entitled to bail and set aside the lower court's order refusing bail.
Summary
The appellants, members of the Chaurasiya family, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly entering an informant's house, abusing her by caste name and assaulting her and her husband, causing injuries. They sought bail, arguing that the FIR was lodged five days after the alleged incident, showing an inordinate delay, that the FIR did not disclose a public assault or caste-based abuse, and that they have a clean antecedent. The State and the second respondent opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegations of assault and caste abuse in the FIR. The High Court considered the nature of the allegations, the delay, the lack of clear prima facie evidence of a caste-based offence, and the appellants' clean record, and ordered that bail be granted upon surrender within six weeks with appropriate sureties. Consequently, the order rejecting bail dated 18‑11‑2025 was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the allegations of caste‑based assault.
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case of caste‑based abuse and assault in public view.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the appellants' clean antecedent warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 333, 3(5), 352, 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v-a)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- caste‑based violence
- FIR delay
- clean antecedent
- criminal appeal
- atrocity law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4908 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- INDRAPURI District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Uday Chaurasiya S/o Late Harihar Prasad Chaurasiya R/o Village – Katar,
P.S – Indrapuri, District – Rohtas.
2. Rohit Chaudhari @ Rohit Chaurasia S/o Uday Chaurasiya R/o Village –
Katar, P.S – Indrapuri, District – Rohtas.
3. Jay Chaurasiya @ Jai Chourasia S/o Uday Chaurasiya R/o Village – Katar,
P.S – Indrapuri, District – Rohtas.
4. Jyoti Chaurasiya D/o Uday Chaurasiya R/o Village – Katar, P.S – Indrapuri,
District – Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sumitra Devi W/o Santosh Prasad Gond R/o Village - Katar, P.S - Indrapuri,
District – Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari No.1, Spl.P.P.
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Spl.
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
18.11.2025 passed by learned Special Court, Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (POA), 1989 Act, Rohtas at Sasaram in
connection with Indrapuri P.S. Case No.103 of 2025, registered
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 333, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S.
and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4908 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby
the prayer for bail of appellant has been rejected.
3. As per the F.I.R., all the appellants entered into the
house of informant and started abusing by calling her caste
name and assaulted her and her husband due to which they
sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case due to dirty village politics. He further submits that
the alleged occurrence took place on 12.07.2025 but the F.I.R.
was lodged on 17.07.2025, as such, there is inordinate delay in
lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained. Learned
counsel submits that the recital of F.I.R. does not disclose that
any alleged abuse by caste name and assault took place within
the public view, as such, no prima facie offence under SC/ST
Act is made out. He further submits that the injury received by
the informant is simple in nature which is caused by hard and
blunt object. Appellants have got clean antecedent.
5. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 oppose the bail
application and submit that appellants are named in the First
Information Report and there is specific allegation of assault
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4908 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
and abuse against the appellants.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, the nature of allegation against the appellants as well as
the fact that they have got clean antecedent, let the appellants, as
named above, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Special Court, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(POA), 1989 Act, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with
Indrapuri P.S. Case No.103 of 2025.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.11.2025
is set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…