Patna High Court
SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to conditions.
Summary
Subhash Chandra Gupta appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 379 of the IPC and several provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court had denied bail on 18‑11‑2021. The appellant argued that he had a clean record, the incident was accidental, and the FIR was false as the informant knew him. The State contended that the notice to the informant was validly served and the allegations warranted denial of bail. The Patna High Court held that the lower court's order was untenable, set it aside, and granted anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act was justified.
- Whether the notice served to the informant complied with procedural requirements.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged involvement amounts to false implication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)(w)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- IPC offences
- CrPC Section 482
- scheduled caste
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.50 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA Son of Jai Shankar Prasad Resident of
Village - Upari, P.s.- Ramgarh, Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan.
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 18.11.2021 in A.B.P. No. 1012 of 2021 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Bhabhua SC/ST P.S.
Case No. 09 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as
well as Sections 3(i), (r), (s) (w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The learned Special PP, at the outset, submits
that in compliance of the order dated 07.07.2022, the concerned
police officer was intimated about the pendency of the appeal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.50 of 2022(4) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
for informing the informant so that he appears in the case.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned
Special PP, the notice is deemed to be validly served.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that appellant intentionally dashed the auto from which
she was alighting and abused by taking caste name and fled
after snatching her chain when people started gathering.
6. 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 perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant and the appellant were known to each other, thus, has
been made an accused by name in the instant FIR. It is also
submitted that no doubt the motorcycle of the appellant dashed
the auto from which the informant was alighting, but then the
accident occurred unintentionally, on which the informant
abused when an altercation took place and the instant FIR came
to be instituted with false allegation. It is also submitted that it
does not appear probable that appellant would have snatched the
chain of the informant knowing that the informant knows him,
this perhaps explains why the informant despite being aware
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.50 of 2022(4) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
about the pendency of the case, chooses not to appear and
contest.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 18.11.2021 in A.B.P.
No. 1012 of 2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection
with Bhabhua SC/ST P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020, is hereby set
aside and the appellant above-named, in the event of his 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) 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 Bhabhua
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…