Patna High Court
Santosh RishiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and bail is granted, setting aside the lower court's order denying bail.
Summary
Santosh Rishi was charged with extortion, assault, theft and property damage arising from a dispute over allotted government land, and alleged offences under the SC/ST Act. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the charge‑sheet was vague, and that no caste name was used publicly, thus no SC/ST offence was made out. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries and the multiple charges. The High Court, considering the appellant's prolonged custody and the lack of specific allegations, set aside the lower court's denial of bail. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving multiple serious offences including those under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the alleged SC/ST offences are established given the claim that no caste name was used in public.
- Whether the appellant's period of custody and the nature of the alleged offences justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 119(1), 126(2), 176, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 308(2), 329(3), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- SC/ST Act
- extortion
- assault
- theft
- property damage
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
- Purnea
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4944 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2025 Thana- Champanagar District- Purnia
======================================================
Santosh Rishi Son of Raghev Rishi Resident of village-Ghichora, Rahina,
Post-Sinhiya, P.S-champa Nagar, Dist-Purnea, Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Kumar Marandi son of Chandradev Marandhi Resident of village-
Thathi Dharhar, Post- Sanjhaghaat, Ps- Dahamdha, Dist- Purnea
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Res. No. 2 : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2 and perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by learned District
and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Schedule Caste/
Schedule Tribe (POA) Act, Purnea whereby the prayer for bail
of the appellant in connection with Champanagar P.S. Case No.
99 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2),
118(2), 109, 308(2), 303(2), 119(1), 176, 329(3), 352, 351(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4944 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant
along with others had been allotted government land for
cultivation and had been residing there. However, the appellant
along with co-accused persons demanded extortion, assaulted
them, stole valuables and damaged property.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that no specific
allegation has been attributed against the appellant rather the
same is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that
the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of land
dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant has not taken the caste name
of the informant in public view. Hence, no offence under the
provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The appellant
has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant in public
view. The appellant is in custody since 07.09.2025 and has got
one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4944 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
Respondent No. 2 submits that the trial is in progress and the
injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature caused
by hard and blunt object. Hence, the appellant does not deserve
the privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and the period of custody undergone by the
appellant, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 17.11.2025
passed by learned District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe (POA) Act, Purnea is
hereby set aside.
7. Let the appellant be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Champanagar P.S.
Case No. 99 of 2025.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…