Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5012 of 2024
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2024 Thana- SHAMBHUGANJ District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Singh son of Vinay Kumar Singh village-
                 kurmadih, ps- Shambhuganj, Dist- Banka

                                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                                     Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Naresh Ram Son of Gholu Ram village- khada, Ps- Udakishunganj, Dist-
                 Madhepura

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :       Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   25-03-2026                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the

                   learned Special P.P. Mr. Binay Krishna for the State. No one

                   appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.

                               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 26.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 710/2024 passed by the

                   learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

                   SC/ST Act, Banka in connection with Shambhuganj P.S. Case

                   No. 109/2024, registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 353 of

                   the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5012 of 2024(5) dt.25-03-2026
                                             2/3




          (va) of the SC/ST Act.

                       3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges

          that he is posted as Block Monitoring Assessment Assistant and

          was discharging his duty at the hospital, when appellant came

          and started abusing by taking caste name and assaulted and took

          Rs.8132/- of donation amount and snatched his chain.

                       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 on the date of occurrence,

          the appellant had gone for his treatment to the hospital but the

          informant was not present, as such when informant came to the

          hospital, a hot talk in between the two ensued and a false case

          came to be instituted.

                       5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently

          opposes the appeal and submits that though a submission has

          been made that appellant had gone for his treatment to the

          hospital, where hot talk ensued but the same is not pleaded in

          the appeal. It is thus submitted that if what has been submitted

          was a correct fact, in that event, the same ought to have been

          pleaded even. It is next submitted that hospital is a public place

          and allegation is of assault and snatching chain and of snatching
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5012 of 2024(5) dt.25-03-2026
                                                          3/3




                       Rs.8132/-, as such the offence was committed in a public view.

                                    6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

                       Court is in complete agreement with the submission made by

                       the learned APP, as such, is not inclined to extend the privilege

                       of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

                                    7. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T